[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 9, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S510-S528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PAYING DOWN THE DEBT
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, recent warnings from Moody's that the United
States will have to begin addressing our debt in order to avoid
downgrading our triple-A bond rating mean that we have to get serious
about doing something about the latest deficit and debt projections.
The President's new budget proposal estimates that the Federal deficit
for fiscal year 2010 will be roughly $1.6 trillion, the largest in
American history. It also projects that the deficit we will accumulate
over the next decade will increase the U.S. national debt by $8.5
trillion. By the year to 2020, our total public debt will have
surpassed $18 trillion and will make up an astounding 77 percent of
gross domestic product.
We all agree that this debt poses a major threat to America's future
prosperity, and we all agree that slashing debt should be a top
national priority. How can we do it? There are four principal ways to
reduce government debt: No. 1, inflate the dollar; No. 2, raise taxes;
No. 3, cut spending; and No. 4, increase economic growth. Let me
briefly discuss each.
First, inflation. Inflation is tempting for governments looking to
mitigate their debt problem, but its economic consequences are
catastrophic. As President Ronald Reagan famously said, inflation is
``as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as
deadly as a hit man.'' Although America has not experienced painfully
high consumer price inflation since the late 1970s and early 1980s, we
all remember what it took to kill that inflation: soaring interest
rates and a deep recession, the worst since the Second World War. As
former Wall Street Journal editor George Melloan notes in his new book,
``The Great Money Binge,'' inflation is ``a tax no one can escape.''
And it is one that disproportionately hurts lower and middle-income
Americans and older Americans with savings.
Taxes, a second option for trimming our debt burden, would have to be
raised significantly. But, of course, raising taxes is the last thing
we should do amid a tentative economic recovery. For evidence of what
taxes do to a shaky economy, look at what happened during Japan's lost
decade. In the early 1990s, the Japanese experienced a stock market
crash, a financial crisis, and a recession. The government took several
steps to address the downturn. Among other things, it reduced income
taxes. Then, just as the Japanese economy was recovering--thanks partly
to these tax cuts--the government raised taxes. The result: Japan fell
back into recession. I hope the administration keeps this history in
mind before raising taxes at the end of the year, as President Obama
has pledged to do.
A third way to lower the national debt would be to cut Federal
spending, which is always painful for Congress but particularly in a
situation such as this one is absolutely necessary. The administration
has been touting a temporary spending freeze that would begin next
year, but this freeze would apply only to discretionary nondefense
spending which comprises a small fraction of the total budget, about 13
percent. Moreover, this freeze doesn't go into effect until the next
fiscal year, and it would not apply to the new stimulus bill the Senate
will soon take up. There is a lot of waste in government, and we have
to look even harder for additional ways to save and be more responsible
with Americans' money. Spending less is the only real way to work off
the debt in the long term.
The fourth way to get out of this debt is through economic growth,
but
[[Page S511]]
this debt explosion could have a significantly negative impact on our
ability to grow by leading to higher interest rates and squelching
investment. Economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff lay hard
numbers to this claim in a new paper entitled ``Growth in a Time of
Debt.'' They write:
When gross external debt reaches 60 percent of GDP, annual
growth declines by about 2 percent; for levels of external
debt in excess of 90 percent of GDP, growth rates are roughly
cut in half.
Remember, the President's budget projects debt to reach 77 percent of
GDP by 2020. So even though growth could eventually enable us to manage
and, over time, reduce and perhaps even eliminate our debt, there is a
point at which the amount of debt itself inhibits growth, our ability
to grow, and obviously we have to tackle the problem of increasing
debt, increasing spending, even if we are to hope to grow our way out
of the debt problem we have.
Over the long term then, the only way to permanently lower our debt
is to hold Federal spending in check and promote strong economic growth
such as through lower taxes. This has proven to work time and time
again.
Whether we look to the 1920s, the 1960s, or the 1980s, history shows
us that reducing marginal income tax rates is a highly effective way to
stimulate an economic expansion. To that end, I hope the administration
decides to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent.
I also hope it reconsiders its plan to raise taxes on U.S.
multinational corporations. The administration argues that many U.S.
corporations are keeping their profits overseas. But as the Cato
Institute economist Chris Edwards pointed out, the reason that U.S.
multinationals are moving their profits abroad is that America has the
second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. Only Japan
has a higher rate.
Lowering corporate income taxes would spur investment and job
creation at home and make us more competitive abroad. Keeping marginal
tax rates where they are would enable small business entrepreneurs to
begin hiring and expanding. That is the key to recovery and to debt
reduction.
So, again, strong growth and spending discipline is the only
sustainable solution to the debt problem. I urge my colleagues to keep
this in mind as we continue to debate this matter.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of
Mr. Craig Becker to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board.
Mr. Craig Becker is the first person--I repeat, the first person--
nominated for a term on the National Labor Relations Board who comes
directly from a labor organization.
Mr. Becker is an officer and associate general counsel of two of our
Nation's largest unions, the AFL-CIO and the SEIU. These unions clearly
have a substantial interest in the most important decisions presently
pending before the Board.
Now, it is one thing to come from private law practice representing
employers or unions as clients under the circumstances. It is quite
another to come to the Board directly from being an officer and
associate general counsel of a labor organization with, as mentioned,
substantial interests in multiple matters pending or that will be
pending before the Board.
Last week's hearing was clearly necessary, as it revealed that while
Mr. Becker will recuse himself for a period of 2 years, and only for 2
years, from those instances when his former employers, the
international unions, are a party in a Board proceeding, he did not
commit to recuse himself from cases raising issues in which the
internationals are involved or impacted, and he did not commit to
recuse himself from cases involving the locals of those two
international unions.
Parties before the Board, whether union or employer, have a right to
a fair and impartial tribunal. The confirmation of an officer and
associate general counsel of two of our Nation's largest unions for a
term on the National Labor Relations Board will make the appearance of
justice and many of the decisions in which he participates impossible
to achieve.
Further, to the extent he interprets the act to adopt the policy
imperatives of the SEIU or the AFL-CIO and not those expressed by
Congress in the act, he will further undermine the Board and sow
cynicism in the labor/management community as well as amongst workers
whose rights to engage in protected concerted activity or refrain from
doing so are protected under the act.
Mr. Becker's writings suggest that he believes the Board can
implement provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act into labor law
through decisions of the Board. This view suggesting the Board can do
what Congress has not authorized should raise concerns with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Let me read a quote from Mr. Becker's colleague, Mr. Stewart Acuff,
the AFL-CIO's director of organizing from a February 3, 2010, posting
on the Huffington Post. This is just last week.
We are very close to the 60 votes we need. If we are not
able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with
President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees
to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules
governing forming a union through administrative action to
once again allow workers in America access to one of the most
basic freedoms in a democracy.
This is clear. This is clear. Mr. Becker's colleague, Mr. Acuff,
clearly indicates what Mr. Becker's agenda would be, which would be to
violate what is absolutely only a prerogative of the Congress of the
United States. This type of bias is why the most respected business
groups in America are opposing Mr. Becker's nomination. A statement
opposing Mr. Becker's nomination from the National Association of
Manufacturers, the Nation's largest industrial trade association,
states:
The NAM firmly believes that NLRB members charged with
administering our nation's labors laws should protect the
principles of fairness and balance that characterize our
labor law system. Employees should have the right to
information from both employers and union officials and the
time to review that information in order to better make
important decisions that impact their jobs and families.
Unfortunately, Mr. Becker's interpretation of our labor
laws does not reflect these principles and casts serious
doubt on his ability to administer our nation's laws in an
unbiased manner. We are particularly concerned with Mr.
Becker's writings in academic journals that argue that the
NLRB should limit the ability of employers to communicate
with their employees during union organizing campaigns.
Specifically, Mr. Becker has claimed in a 1993 Minnesota Law
Review article that ``the core defect in union election law .
. . is the employer's status as a party to labor
representation proceedings.''
Mr. Becker has asserted views that the NLRB should rewrite
union election rules in favor of union organizers. Such
policy decisions should only be determined by Congress. The
NAM is particularly concerned that if confirmed, Mr. Becker
would seek to advance aspects of the jobs-killing Employee
Free Choice Act through actions of the NLRB.
From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that has only opposed three
nominees in the last 30 years, I quote from the U.S. Chamber's
statement:
This is only the third time in more than 30 years that the
Chamber has opposed a nominee to the Board, most recently the
1993 nomination of William B. Gould. Mr. Becker has written
prolifically about the National Labor Relations Act, the law
he would be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he
be confirmed. Many of the positions taken in his writings are
well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of
established precedent and the delicate balance in current
labor law. These positions have raised significant concerns
in the employer community. Among those concerns are the
extent to which Mr. Becker would restrictively interpret
employers' free speech rights and the extent to which he
would seek to expand the use of intermittent strikes and
other forms of work stoppages that disrupt the right of
employers to maintain operations during labor disputes.
There may be no one ever nominated to the NLRB more opposed by the
business community in the entire history of the NLRB. Are we to believe
that the President could not find a single person in America who would
not elicit this kind of response due to their bias? Last week, over 500
employers signed a letter opposing Mr. Becker's nomination; 23 major
business associations oppose Mr. Becker's nomination.
Mr. Becker's views speak for themselves. But his supporters on the
left have explained in full view why they are attempting to seat Mr.
Becker. From the authors in the left-leaning publication, The Nation,
``Obama's Pro-Union Nominations to the Labor
[[Page S512]]
Relations Board Stalled,'' January 20, 2010:
The battle over nominations to the NLRB, even more than
EFCA, may be what really determine the extent of labor's
gains under Obama. Should Obama persevere and see his
nominations confirmed, there is reason to believe that much
of what organized labor hopes to accomplish via EFCA will be
realized through the rule-making power of the NLRB.
If there was any doubt about the euphoria on the left, look
no further than what Wade Rathke, the chief organizer of
Community Organizations International, formally Acorn
International, founder and chief organizer of Acorn, and
founder and chief organizer of Local 100, Service Employees
International Union, recently wrote:
For my money Craig [Becker's] signal contribution has been
his work in crafting and executing the legal strategies which
have allowed the . . . effective organization of informal
workers--home health and home day care--has been the great,
exceptional success story within the American labor movement
for our generation, leading us to the [forced dues] of
perhaps a half-million such workers in unions such as SEIU,
AFSCME, CWA, and the AFT.
Becker is ``the key lawyer from the beginning in the early
1980s who was able to piece together the arguments and
representation that allowed those of us involved in trying to
organize home health care workers in Illinois, Massachusetts,
and elsewhere. . . . [Becker's] role was often behind the
scenes devising the strategy with the organizer and lawyers,
writing the briefs for others to file, and putting all of the
pieces together, but he was the go-to-guy on all of this.''
Rathke concludes:
I can remember Keith Kelleher negotiating the subsidy for
the SEIU Local 880 in Chicago and always making sure there
was the money for the organizers, but that SEIU was also
willing to allow access to Craig. . . .
I just received this, from Alison Reardon of the Service Employees
International Union, who came out with an e-mail today that reads:
Senator, your attendance is crucial to appointing Craig
Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Please attend
Thursday's HELP [executive] Session to report out President
Obama's nomination of Craig Becker for Senate confirmation.
This is the highest priority for organized labor, and
Majority Leader Reid will file Cloture on Friday 2/5, and has
assured us [the] Senate will vote to end debate at 5 p.m.
Monday 2/8.
So when this President was elected, he said he would govern from the
center. If Craig Becker's nomination is approved, we will see the
undermining of a longstanding practice in labor law that should be the
prerogative of the United States Congress.
If the Congress of the United States, in its wisdom, or ignorance,
decides to pass EFCA, then that is an act of Congress. It should not
happen. Card check should not happen because of an unelected
bureaucracy, and the National Labor Relations Board is the one to do
it. Mr. Becker would have that, obviously my conclusion, on his agenda.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the cloture motion on Mr. Becker's
nomination.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you take a look at the history of this
great Nation, at least in my lifetime, you cannot miss what happened to
America immediately after World War II. Veterans came back from that
war, thousands of them, and they were greeted with the GI bill, which
opened the door for them to buy homes, start businesses, start an
education, and find good jobs.
It may have been one of the most amazing, progressive, positive
things we have ever done in our Nation's history: to take a war effort
and bring it home to create an economic effort in America. Businesses
were springing up in every direction. Workers were finding jobs and
building homes. It was a wonderful time in our Nation's history.
Parallel to that GI bill and economic development was the rise of
unionism in America. More and more workers were able to go into their
workplace and bargain collectively for the basics that people need:
safety in the workplace, a living wage. So if you work 40 hours a week,
you can make enough money to take care of yourself and raise a
family, retirement benefits, health care benefits. These all came about
at that same period of time after World War II. The rise of the
American economy, with the returning veterans, and the rise in the
number of people who were belonging to labor unions, in parallel,
brought the middle class into reality in America.
It was a positive force across our Nation. I know a little bit about
it with my own personal family experience. My mother, my father, my two
brothers, and I worked for a railroad in east St. Louis, IL. Dad was a
labor organizer. He was not a high-ranking official, but he was a proud
member of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks; mom the same. I worked
various times in summer jobs at that same railroad. I knew I was going
to get not a lavish salary but a decent salary for my work and have
good conditions because that union had sat down and bargained so I
would be recognized as an employee and protected in terms of the work I
did. It made sure I was fairly paid.
The same thing was true of many other families, union families, all
across America. My mom and dad made it to the 8th grade. They sent
their boys on to high school and to college and I managed to finish law
school. It was the American dream, and American unions played a big
role in realizing that dream.
Now what has happened? Fewer and fewer Americans belong to labor
unions. Fewer and fewer Americans are able to bargain collectively for
decent wages and working conditions and the basic benefits we would
expect. What did we see happening across America as a result of that
trend? A growing disparity in terms of the wages earned by working
people and the amount of money being paid to those who were the
officers of corporations. That disparity has reached shocking, if not
disgraceful, levels, where people who are at the highest rungs of
corporate America are drawing salaries and bonuses dramatically higher
than the people who work for them, who actually are productive and
doing a good day's work.
Many of us believe there is an imbalance here. It is an imbalance
that has been created deliberately over the years. As business
interests have had more power in Washington, they have made it
increasingly difficult for workers to exercise their rights in their
workplaces to organize and speak for themselves. The agency that is
supposed to be the referee in this battle is the National Labor
Relations Board. They look for unfair practices by either the workers
attempting to organize or the business which is being organized. They
basically stand by a principle which we all respect; that is, if a
majority of the workers want to bargain collectively, they should have
the right to do that, to organize in a union, if they wish it.
But we know what happens. When organizers come to many businesses--
not all of them but many of them--and try to speak to the employees and
tell them: Here is what we can offer for you if you will join our
union, if you will join with your other coworkers in bargaining
together, many times they are not only shunned, they are sent away. If
they are fortunate enough to come up with a majority of workers who
want to move toward unionizing, they find themselves facing legal
battles, one after the other, going on for literally years, until you
literally wear out the people who are trying to organize that plant.
Complicit in that many times has been the National Labor Relations
Board. Without effective and forceful enforcement of the laws that
exist, without a sense of urgency in decisionmaking, this agency has
allowed so many workers in America to fall by the wayside and not have
a chance to stand for themselves. Occasionally, it reaches outrageous
levels. We saw that in the case of Lilly Ledbetter, a person who was in
a management position, incidentally, at a tire manufacturer down in
Alabama. She was being discriminated against in the workplace. The laws
could not protect her--at least they did not protect her--and she took
her case to court. The Supreme Court of the United States threw her
case out, even though she clearly had been discriminated against. We
had to change the law in America because discrimination does take place
in the workplace and because we say in this country people should be
treated fairly.
Now the unions come to us and say: We want to change the way we
organize the workplace. They put together the Employee Free Choice Act.
That is their term for the legislation that has been offered. It offers
a new alternative to gauging whether a majority truly wants to organize
a workplace. That bill has been considered in the other
[[Page S513]]
body. It has not been called in this body, and it is unlikely it will
ever be called or passed in its original form. But many of us realize
it is only fair to make some changes in the way these workplaces are
organized, so if a majority of workers truly do want to organize, they
have that right, they are not harassed and intimidated, threatened and
fired because they are exercising their right under the law to consider
belonging to a union or voting in favor of belonging to a union.
Part of this whole discussion relates to the National Labor Relations
Board. Before the Senate today is the nomination of Craig Becker from
the State of Illinois to be a member of the National Labor Relations
Board. You have just heard Senator McCain come and talk about Mr.
Becker's activities. Senator McCain is my friend. He and I see America
and perhaps the world in slightly different perspectives from time to
time, and we certainly do in this case.
The Senator from Arizona was critical of Mr. Becker, saying, well, he
was an active organizer for the Service Employees International Union.
That is a fact. The fact is, he worked for them in an effort to try to
organize workplaces, and in many respects he was successful. That was
his job. It was nothing illegal. It was an honorable, legal effort on
his part to give voice to employees who otherwise did not have one.
Some of the service employee unions, incidentally, represent people
with very modest jobs, people who may be doing custodial work or basic
maintenance work or who are overlooked in many organizing efforts. So
Mr. Becker was fighting for them. He was fighting to give folks who
otherwise would not have a chance at least a voice, if not a fighting
chance, to be treated with some dignity in the workplace.
Right now, we know what the facts are when it comes to the National
Labor Relations Board. If you are in the process of organizing a
workplace, and there is a violation of the law, the National Labor
Relations Board will take 2 years before they make a decision on a
violation of the labor laws--2 years. Well, things change in 2 years,
and the owners of businesses know that. So making a violation and
waiting 2 years buys them the time to try to change the sentiment in
the workplace. It takes 1 year from actually having an organizing
petition that is signed before the National Labor Relations Board makes
its decision.
Craig Becker knows that. He comes before us because we believe and
the President believes he would be a good person on the National Labor
Relations Board. It is hard to look at his background and say he is not
qualified. He clearly is qualified.
We know the National Labor Relations Board administers the primary
law governing labor relations in the private sector. It normally has
five Members. It currently has only two sitting members, and it is
often deadlocked on issues. It has led to many legal questions being
raised about the validity of the Board's decisions.
Craig Becker is an accomplished lawyer and academic. As associate
general counsel for the Service Employees International Union, Craig
Becker worked to protect the rights of workers to organize. He has
argued labor and employment law cases at most levels of the Federal
court system, including in the Supreme Court of the United States. Is
there anyone who questions this man is qualified for this job? He
taught labor law at UCLA, the University of Chicago, and Georgetown
University. His research and academic work is well respected and cited
by many others in the field.
He was first nominated to fill one of the three openings at the NLRB
in July 2009. He was renominated by President Obama just last month.
Both last year and last month, the HELP Committee--which is chaired by
my friend, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who will be on the floor with
the ranking minority member, Senator Enzi--approved his nomination.
Since he was nominated, Mr. Becker has responded to over 300 written
questions from Republican Senators--more than nearly any other nominee.
I do not know how many questions are asked of Supreme Court nominees,
but when you ask 300 questions, it is pretty clear it goes beyond
needing some information. The idea is to try to trip up the nominee or
ask so many questions you will wear them out. He has met personally
with every interested Senator who has wanted to ask him his own
personal views. He has addressed the concerns of Senators in
congressional hearings--only the second time an NLRB nominee,
incidentally, had a second hearing in the last 25 years.
Throughout this process, Mr. Becker has stated his belief that
Congress creates labor laws, not the NLRB. I guess there is a parallel
to this whole argument about judicial activism, where the argument is
being made on the Republican side that if Mr. Becker is brought to the
National Labor Relations Board, he is going to make the law. He said,
clearly, he will not, his job is to basically interpret the law as
written and to implement the law as Congress has passed it. He said,
repeatedly, if confirmed, he will apply the law fairly and impartially.
Confirming Craig Becker will allow the NLRB to move forward with its
congressionally mandated duties, and I am certainly going to support
his confirmation.
I struggle when I hear my Republican colleagues say: Well, it is not
fair. When a Democrat is elected President, he might appoint someone to
the National Labor Relations Board who is more friendly to the labor
unions than a Republican appointee. Is that a stunning revelation to
anyone? What we are looking for are honest people who have no prejudice
against either side and who will try to make the system work and make
the National Labor Relations Board work.
When I look at some of the statistics about what is going on--the
number of contested decisions issued by the National Labor Relations
Board, on a 4-year average, is 426; and the time it takes them, the
processing time from charge to Board decision is 782 days, more than 2
years--it tells me they have broken down in terms of their basic
responsibility under the law.
If we keep it at two members, and people can question the validity of
any of their decisions, then those who want to make sure the National
Labor Relations Board is not an effective working force in our
government may have their way. I hope they do not. I certainly hope we
will reach a point where we will approve this man who has stood before
the HELP Committee and this Senate on two separate occasions, answering
all the questions that have been offered. He comes with solid
credentials, in terms of his legal knowledge as well as his life
experience. He is a person who I know has worked hard to help those
less fortunate who are looking for a chance for a living wage and
decent working conditions.
Are we going to say anyone who comes to the National Labor Relations
Board who has worked for a labor union is disqualified? Is that the
position being taken by some? I hope not. That is fundamentally unfair.
It is akin to saying anyone who owned a business could not be a member
of the National Labor Relations Board. I would not agree with that.
I think we need fairness and balance and impartiality. I think Craig
Becker will bring that. So I hope my colleagues will join me in
supporting his nomination.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, first of all, just to amplify the record
on the Lilly Ledbetter case, the Supreme Court did not rule against Ms.
Ledbetter. They upheld the statute of limitations of 180 days for
claims filed under civil rights laws. She had come to the court, not a
few months after the alleged incident, but years and years later. Only
then did she try to make a case. The Court was upholding the law which
this Congress passed.
Secondly, I rise, reluctantly, to oppose the nomination of Craig
Becker, and I do so based on experience, not based on a whim, not based
on politics but based on what I have experienced in the past 6 months
in terms of confirmation in labor-related positions.
As you may know, I am from Atlanta, GA. That is the home of Delta Air
Lines that has recently merged with Northwest Airlines to form the
largest airlines in the United States of America. The National
Mediation Board oversees labor issues with regard to the industry.
In the merger of Delta and Northwest, the merger of two different
companies with different cultures--Delta
[[Page S514]]
less organized and Northwest more--one of the major questions about
that merger as it related to labor law was what would the law be to
govern a unionization vote, in this case, of the flight attendants.
Northwest flight attendants were organized; Delta's were not. For the
75-year history of the Railway Labor Act in the United States of
America, the principle of the National Mediation Board called for a
majority vote of all members of the company in the employee class,
meaning if there were 1,000 flight attendants in the class, it would
take 501 votes to pass a motion to organize.
As we considered the nominees for the National Mediation Board in the
HELP Committee last year, I spent extensive time questioning the two
Democrat nominees who were nominated for the Board. I pressed them on
this very issue trying to ensure that we had what Senator Durbin
referred to; that is, absolutely equal treatment and not a bias in
terms of determination of labor decisions. I listened to these
appointees over and over again say they would be fair, they would not
be biased, and they did not have a preconceived position, and I voted
for them.
Within weeks of being seated, they issued a proposed rule at the
behest of labor unions, voting 2 to 1 to change the 75-year-old policy.
In the face of a unionization vote getting ready to take place at the
world's largest airline, they are attempting change the 75-year policy
of the National Mediation Board. If they are successful, they will
allow a simple majority of the number of people voting to replace the
current policy which is a majority of the total number of employees in
the class. In the case of the example I gave before in which if there
were 1,000 people in the class, under existing law it would take 501 to
organize. That is fair. By changing to a majority of those voting if
only 100 voted, it would only take 51 to vote to organize the entire
class of 1,000 employees within a company. That is a radical shift in
the balance between labor and management, without any changes on the
ground to merit such a departure from precedent.
Secondly, many on the other side are always talking about the
Employee Free Choice Act and how we ought to make it easier to
organize. In 2008, which is the last year for which I have statistics,
67 percent of all unionization votes under existing law were in favor
of organizing. EFCA amounts to a solution toward a problem we don't
have.
Mr. Becker is a very gifted, talented attorney. I sat in for Senator
Enzi as ranking member at the confirmation hearing we had in the HELP
committee 2 weeks ago, and I asked him about these specific questions.
He was very careful and crafty in his answers. I came away not
convinced that the statements of Mr. Acuff, the statements of Mr.
Iglitzin, and the statements of former NLRB Member Gould were
inaccurate. Each of those pro-union experts has written that Mr.
Becker's appointment offers an opportunity to do by regulatory
authority what could not be done on the floor of the Senate in terms of
card check and government-written first contracts. This concern,
combined with the National Mediation Board's refusal to obey 75 years
of precedent leads me to only one conclusion. Out of an abundance of
caution, I am going to vote against the confirmation of Mr. Becker in
hopes the administration will send a nominee to the floor who is
committed to a balanced treatment of both organized labor and
management in this country.
Mr. President, I am grateful for the time, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit for the record a list of
nearly 675 organizations that have written in opposition to Mr.
Becker's nomination. These groups represent the backbone of our
Nation's economy and the catalysts we will need to create new American
jobs. They believe Mr. Becker's stated views represent a threat to
economic growth, and they oppose Mr. Becker as a nominee for the
National Labor Relations Board.
I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record
immediately following my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to oppose cloture of
the nomination of Craig Becker to be a member of the National Labor
Relations Board. My colleagues know it is very unusual to have a
cloture vote on a HELP Committee nominee, but this will be the second
in as many weeks. In fact, these two nominees are the only HELP
nominations I have opposed. Over 40 HELP nominees have been swiftly
confirmed after appropriate consideration in this Congress, but these
two nominees are problematic, and instead of withdrawing the
nominations as has been done in previous administrations, the majority
is attempting to force them through.
Craig Becker was first nominated last July, and controversy
surrounding his nomination has only grown since then. A review of
decades of writings by Mr. Becker has revealed that he has advocated
for the most radical theories of labor law, pursuing policies such as
mandatory unionization where an employee would choose which union to
join, not whether to join a union; and questioning whether an employer
has a right to any involvement at all in the unionization questions in
his workplace.
In addition to his writings, Mr. Becker has spent the majority of his
career serving as counsel to the two largest labor organizations in
America, which has raised questions about his ability to fairly
adjudicate cases involving those unions.
On these issues and others, members of the HELP Committee raised a
number of serious concerns. It has been cited as a negative that
Republicans on the committee submitted hundreds of written questions to
Mr. Becker, and it is certainly true that we did ask a lot of
questions. Last year, Mr. Becker answered 276 questions for the record.
Following his hearing this month, he was sent more than 100 more.
The fact that we have submitted over 400 questions and after three
rounds of questions still do not believe we have gotten definitive
answers is merely another sign of the deep concerns about this nominee.
Last week, the chairman noted Mr. Becker has faced more questions than
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. I am not sure I understand the
relevance of this fact. I have yet to find the constituent who is
urging us to ask fewer questions of our nominees to positions of high
public trust.
Furthermore, if a nominee garners a greater level of public scrutiny
and larger than usual volumes of questions, we should ask why. This
unique scrutiny should be a signal that the individual has raised a
great level of concern and controversy. A nominee as controversial as
Craig Becker should not go forward, and for that reason I will oppose
cloture today.
The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has had other
nominees who, right or wrong, became controversial. Some of those
occurred while I was chairman. Yet not once did I force through a
nominee on a party-line cloture vote. We faced partisan opposition for
nominees for Surgeon General, the Food and Drug Administration, and the
Mine Safety and Health Administration. Oftentimes there appeared to be
very little basis for that opposition to my side of the aisle. But
because of the strong opposition, the nominees were not confirmed.
In the final 2 years of the last administration, the majority leader
held pro forma sessions to even prevent recess appointments, and now
the majority, in their control of the calendar, has taken the last 2
weeks to try to jam through partisan, controversial nominees while the
public is seeking solutions to the many economic problems facing our
Nation.
I wish to point out that there is another way. There are three
current vacancies at the National Labor Relations Board, and the HELP
Committee has unanimously approved the President's other two nominees.
If the Senate wanted to confirm two new members to the Board, it could
have easily done so today. In fact, it could have done so last year.
One of these nominees, Mark Pearce, is a labor-side attorney who has
spent his career representing labor unions. The other is a Republican
nominee with management-side experience in addition to tenures on the
staff of the National Labor Relations Board and in the Senate as my
labor policy director, Brian
[[Page S515]]
Hayes. Yet these nominees did not inspire objections from HELP members
on either side of the aisle.
Both Mr. Hayes and Mr. Pearce met with Senators, answered written
questions--not nearly as many because there weren't the same degree or
amount of concerns--and convinced us that they were well qualified and
able to be impartial. Clearly, being linked to interest groups such as
labor unions and having opposing policy positions is not disqualifying
for nominees before the HELP Committee. The problem with Mr. Becker's
nomination is not that he works for unions or that he supports policies
which many of us oppose. We have approved dozens of nominees with whom
we disagree.
The problem is this nominee has shown in his writings and in his
responses to the committee that his thinking is far outside the
mainstream. This nominee has failed to convince us that he will not
attempt to circumvent Congress and impose card check-style measures
administratively to tilt the playing field against employers.
For 7 months Senators have been attempting to address and analyze
concerns raised by the employer community and others regarding Mr.
Becker's writings, particularly the potential for radical changes in
labor law that he has advocated and argued can be implemented without
congressional authorization. We have also heard concerns about the
nominee's position on recusal, since he spent more than two decades
working with the Nation's two largest labor organizations.
There were additional questions about Mr. Becker's status as both an
employee of a labor union and as an adviser to the President's
transition team. There were questions about Mr. Becker's possible
authorship of Executive Orders in that capacity, one of which limited
the information given to employees about their right to refrain from
paying certain union dues.
Finally, there were concerns about Mr. Becker's role as SEIU
associate general counsel and the SEIU's involvement with the scandal
surrounding ACORN and former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich.
Senators attempted to address all of these concerns through interviews,
written questions, and a hearing. However, not all of the concerns were
favorably resolved, and last Thursday, the nomination was reported out
on a party-line vote.
I have made numerous attempts to alleviate concerns about Mr.
Becker's stated plans to reinterpret the National Labor Relations Act
to limit the ability of employers to participate in the process or
otherwise tilt the playing field unfairly against employers. However,
his answers have been far from reassuring.
When asked if he would ever support imposing the main provisions of
the card check bill through regulatory fiat, he left the door open. He
answered that while the statute might be interpreted to not permit the
Board to uniformly strip employees of the ability to have secret ballot
elections, impose mandatory binding arbitration, and raise penalties on
employers, if presented with arguments that it would, he would keep an
open mind.
He also told me he believed the Board could impose ``quickie
elections''--one of the main card check alternatives that has been
discussed. He said he was open to requiring employers to provide
personal contact information for all of their employees to any union
that asked. He also made it clear he would be open to broadening the
use of mandatory bargaining orders in cases where there is no showing
that a union has the support of a majority of employees.
Despite the hundreds of written questions he has answered, Mr. Becker
has failed to convince me he would not enter into the job with a
preconceived agenda to unfairly tilt the playing field against
employers, altering the delicate balance of current labor law.
The relative freedom from industrial strife that has allowed America
to prosper since enactment of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935
is dependent on a balance between the rights of employees to
collectively bargain and the right of employers to control their
workplace. It is essential that we not allow the balance to be upended
now. In this critical time for our economy, our Nation is dealing with
a 9.7-percent unemployment rate, and more than 11 million Americans are
drawing unemployment benefits.
Comparative studies have shown that enactment of the card check
provision will increase unemployment, making the situation only worse.
Because of the Board's broad and important agenda, we simply cannot
take the risk of supporting this nominee.
Two recent developments have given me additional pause in reviewing
Mr. Becker's nomination. First, despite Mr. Becker's vague assertions,
there have been several recent articles and statements from his own
movement that confirm all our concerns. In The Nation magazine, another
union lawyer wrote that all of the card check provisions and the card
check alternative provisions I discussed earlier can be achieved
without congressional authority and stated this as a reason to confirm
Becker.
Former NLRB member, William Gould, made the same point in an article
last year, and a union official wrote just last week that:
If we aren't able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we
will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and
their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to
change the rules governing forming a union through
administrative action.
There is obviously a high expectation among organized labor
constituencies that Mr. Becker can be sent to the National Labor
Relations Board to deliver wanted policy changes which cannot be
achieved through Congress. Because he has failed to unequivocally rule
out that possibility, I can't support his nomination.
The second reason I am demanding a high degree of certainty in his
answers is my recent direct experience with nominees who claim to have
no opinions on certain issues and no preconceived agenda but who, once
confirmed, immediately take action on what they claim to have no
preconceived position on. An example of this is the current situation
at the National Mediation Board, NMB.
Last year, the Senate unanimously confirmed two nominees from the
National Mediation Board. Some Members, including myself, specifically
asked each of them about their position on changing the way a majority
in a unionization election is measured. In response, both these
nominees testified they had no preconceived agenda to alter rules that
had been in place for 75 years. You will recall the Senator from
Georgia, Senator Isakson, had the same concern and asked them
specifically, even in private meetings, what their opinion would be.
Yet practically before the ink had dried on their confirmations, these
two nominees began pushing through a regulation that is a wholesale
reversal of those rules to tilt the playing field to the benefit of
labor unions. In their haste, the Democratic members of the Board
thoroughly disregarded the rights of the single minority member. The
minority member was given no notice that an effort to initiate
rulemaking was underway and, instead, was given 1\1/2\ hours to review
the final rule proposal to determine if she would support it. They even
tried to stop her from publishing a dissent to the proposal. There are
strong indications that the two recently confirmed National Mediation
Board members were not forthright with the Senate, and it is clear they
showed no respect for the rights of the Mediation Board minority, the
regulatory process or the legislative process. In promising Senators to
keep an open mind going into this decision, these National Mediation
Board nominees used the very same language Mr. Becker uses today.
Similarly, the President's nominee for the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration faced many concerns from the small business
community and others about his possible agenda going into office.
Undoubtedly, the President's nominee for this position would have some
views I do not agree with and I fully expect and accept that. But I
sought to form an understanding with him on an issue that has
traditionally drawn bipartisan support; that is, compliance assistance
programs at OSHA that substitute ``gotcha'' inspections with advice and
guidance to cooperatively create safer workplaces and save the
government money. When it became clear to me the premier compliance
assistance program--the Voluntary Protection Program or VPP--was being
downsized, I asked the OSHA nominee if he supported compliance
programs.
[[Page S516]]
He assured me he ``recognized their great value.'' I asked if he
would reevaluate the decision to downsize it. He assured me he would
and promised to work with the committee. He was confirmed unanimously.
Yet when the budget came out last week, it proposed transferring
program staff to another function and eliminate its funding. This does
not meet anyone's definition of ``support.''
Now, Mr. Becker is nominated for a different agency and is a
different nominee. I certainly don't want to impute the actions of
others onto Mr. Becker, but my recent experiences with what nominees
say in the confirmation process and how they act once confirmed has
forced me to be far more skeptical of vague assurances.
I am also concerned that Mr. Becker's ethics disclosure paperwork has
not been updated with the Office of Government Ethics since July 2009,
nor has the ethics agreement been revised since April 2009. The
administration has pledged support for transparency and accountability
and I, therefore, question their decision to rush this nominee through
without a proper ethics review.
Independent boards, such as the National Labor Relations Board, are
entrusted with a great deal of autonomy. The decisions they hand down
and the regulations they enforce have a great deal of impact on a very
significant portion of our economy and our Nation's jobs. In the
Senate, it is our responsibility to determine if these nominees can be
entrusted with this power or if they would compromise fairness to grant
favors to special interest groups or former employers.
Late last week, the Senate invoked cloture on Patricia Smith, by a
partisan vote of 60 to 32, jamming through a controversial nominee who
misled the HELP Committee. To be clear, I have been supportive of
nearly all the nominees who have come before the HELP Committee, and I
have worked hard with the chairman to swiftly confirm qualified
nominees and put them into office. But the Senate has an important
responsibility of advice and consent. To regain the trust of the
American people, we should demand more accountability from the people
we are putting into offices of public trust. I urge this administration
to find qualified nominees who will enjoy broad support in the Senate,
and I have offered my commitment and past experience to assist with the
swift confirmation of those qualified nominees.
For all the above reasons, I will oppose Mr. Becker's nomination to
serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
I hope the other two nominees who are well qualified,
uncontroversial, and who had bipartisan support will be brought to the
floor. I also hope this controversial nominee will not be put on the
Board through a recess appointment if the Senate rejects the nomination
on a bipartisan basis today. As I mentioned before, anytime there were
candidates who had that kind of opposition in the past, they were not
pushed through on a cloture vote and I hope that will be the case and
the name will be withdrawn.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
Entities that Oppose Craig Becker's Nomination to the National Labor
Relations Board
American Hotel and Lodging Association (AH&LA); American
Association of Nurse Executives; American Trucking
Association; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC);
Associated General Contractors of America; College and
University Professional Association for Human Resources; Food
Marking Institute; HR Policy Association; Independent
Electrical Contractors, Inc.; International Foodservice
Distributors Association; International Franchise
Association; National Association of Manufactures (NAM);
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National
Federation of Independent Business; National Pest Management
Association; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association;
National Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors
Association; Printing Industries of America; Retail Industry
Leaders Association.
Society for Human Resource Management; Steel Manufacturers
Association; US Chamber of Commerce; HR Policy Association;
National Retail Federation; The Coalition for a Democratic
Workplace; A.O. Smith Corporation; A. Schulman; Accurate
Castings, Inc.; Accuride International Inc.; Ace
Manufacturing Industries; Aeries Enterprises LLC; Ahaus Tool
and Engineering, Inc.; Ahresty Wilmington Corporation; Air
Logistics Corporation; All American Mfg. Co; Allegheny
Technologies Incorporated; Allied Machine & Engineering
Corp.; National Right to Work Committee; Americans for
Limited Government; The American Conservative Union.
Allied Plastics Co., Inc.; Alloy Resources Inc.; Altadis
USA, Inc; AM Castle; AMB Enterprises, LLC; American Circuits,
Inc.; American Coolair Corporation; American Dehydrated
Foods, Inc; American Felt & Filter Company; American Foundry
Society; American Hydro Corporation; American Lawn Mower
Company; American Safety Razor Company; American Shizuki
Corporation; American Shower Door; Amsco Windows; Anchor
Fabricators, Inc.; Anthony Timberlands, Inc.; Aries
Electronics Inc.; Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce/Assoc.
Ind. of Arkansas.
Arm-R-Lite Door Mfg. Company, Inc.; Arobotech Systems,
Inc.; Arrow Adhesives Company; Artwoodworking & Mfg. Co.; ASC
Profiles Inc.; Ashley Furniture Industries; Associated
Industries of Massachusetts; Atlantic Mold & Machining Corp.;
Atlas Machine and Supply Inc.; ATS Medical, Inc.; Auburn
Gear, Inc.; Auto Truck, Inc.; Avtron Aerospace, Inc.; Bannish
Lumber, Inc.; Batesville Products, Inc.; Beacon Converters,
Inc.; Bead Industries, Inc.; Beck Steel; Bell Laboratories,
Inc.; Belton Industries, Inc.
Bergsen Inc.; Berkley Screw Machine Products, Inc.; Berlin
Metals; Bertch Cabinet Mfg., Inc.; Best Chairs, Inc.; BesTech
Tool Corporation; Better Baked Foods, Inc.; Betts Industries,
Inc.; BH Electronics, Inc.; Bicron Electronics Co; Big D
Metalworks; BioResearch Associates, Inc.; Bison Gear &
Engineering Corp.; Blue Bell Creameries, L.P.; BlueScope
Steel North America; Bollinger Shipyards, Inc.; Bommer
Industries, Inc.; Boston Steel & Mfg. Co.; BPI, Inc.; Braun
Northwest, Inc.
Brick Industry Association; Bridgestone Americas, Inc.;
Brigham Exploration Company; Brinkman International Group,
Inc.; Broan-NuTone LLC; Broderson Manufacturing Corp.; Brush
Engineered Materials; Buckeye Fabricating Company; C and M
Manufacturing Incorporated; Calgon Carbon Corporation;
Cambridge Specialty Co.; Cameron Manufacturing & Design,
Inc.; Cardinal Systems Inc; Carter Products Co., Inc.; Case
Systems, Inc.; CASHCO Inc.; CB Manufacturing & Sales Co.,
Inc.; CEMCO Inc.; Cemen Tech, Inc.
Centennial Bolt, Inc.; Central Bindery Company; Central
States Fire App LLC; CFX Battery, Inc.; Chaney Enterprises;
Channellock Inc.; Chatsworth Products, Inc.; Chemstar
Products; Clinch-Tite Corp.; Clow Stamping Co. CMD
Corporation; Coast Controls, Inc.; Coastal Forest
Resources; Coastal Plywood Company; Coating Excellence
International; ColorMatrix Corporation; Commercial Cutting
and Graphics, LLC; Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation;
Construction Specialties, Inc.; Con-way, Inc.; Cooper Tire
& Rubber Company.
Corbett Package Company; Crafted Plastics, Inc.;
CrossCountry Courier; CRT, Custom Products, Inc.; Crysteel
Manufacturing Incorporated; Custom Applied Technology Corp.;
Custom Tool and Grinding, Inc.; Dakota Awards, Inc.; Dakota
Specialty Milling, Inc.; Dart Container Corporation; Davron
Technologies, Inc.; Dayton Industries Inc.; Deist Industries,
Inc.; Delta Power Company; Dews Research Laboratories, LLC.;
Dietz & Watson, Inc.; Dixie Printing & Packaging Corporation;
Dixon Insurance Inc.; DLH Industries, Inc.; Domain
Communications LLC.
Don R Fruchey, Inc.; DORMA Architectural Hardware; Dorner
Mfg. Corp.; Drawn Metals Corporation; Drenth Brothers Inc.;
DRT Mfg. Co.; DTR Industries, Inc.; Duke Manufacturing Co.;
DuPage Machine Products; Duraclass by TBEI; Du-Well Grinding
Enterprises, Inc.; E&E Manufacturing Co. Inc.; E.D. Bullard
Company; East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc.; East-Lind Heat
Treat, Inc.; Eclipse Inc.; Edison Price Lighting; Elan
Technology, Inc.; Electro Arc Mfg. Co. Inc.; Electronic
Systems, Inc.
Ellwood Group, Inc.; EM-CO Metal Products, Inc.; Emery
Corporation; Energy Exchanger Company; Engineered Building
Design, L.C.; Ervin Industries; Everhard Products, Inc.;
Exxel Outdoors, Inc.; F.C. Brengman & Associates; F.N.
Sheppard & Co.; Falcon Plastics, Inc.; Fargo Assembly Co.;
Fiber Resources, Inc.; Fiberglass Coatings Inc.; Flambeau,
Inc.; Flexcon Industries Inc.; FONA International; Food
Services of America; Forrest Machine, Inc.; Foster
Transformer Co.
Founders Insurance Group, Inc.; Fox Valley Molding Inc.;
Foxx Equipment Company; Franklin International; Frasal Tool;
Fredon Corporation; Freedom Corrugated, LLC; Freeport Welding
& Fabricating, Inc.; GCR Associates; Gemini, Inc.; General
Machine Products Co.; General Steel and Supply Company;
Genest Concrete Works, Inc.; Geokon Inc.; Glas-Col, LLC;
Glasforms Inc.; Glastender, Inc.; Glier's Meats Inc.; Globe
Products Inc.
Gold'n Plump Poultry; Gossner Foods Inc.; Grande Cheese
Company; Granite Rock Company; Graphite Metallizing; Green
Bay Packaging Inc.; Grossman Iron & Steel Company; Gruber
Systems Incorporated; Guardian Industries Corp.; Hamilton
Caster & Mfg. Co.; Hammond Group, Inc.; Harden Furniture
Company, Inc.; Hardwood Products Company; Harold Beck & Sons,
Inc.; Henry Brick Company, Inc.; Henry Molded Products;
Hercules Drawn Steel Corporation; HES Inc.; HFI, LLC.;
Hialeah Metal Spinning, Inc.
High Company LLC; High Industries, Inc.; Hiwasse
Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Hobson & Motzer, Inc.; Holden
Industries, Inc.; Horizon Steel Co.; HTI Cybernetics;
[[Page S517]]
Hudapack Metal Treating Companies; Huron Automatic Screw Co.;
Illinois Tool Works Inc.; Industrial Fasteners Institute;
Industrial Metal Fab, Inc.; Industrial Nut Corp.; Industrial
Spring Corporation; Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute;
International Hydraulics Inc.; Iten Industries; J.C. Steele &
Sons, Inc.; J.T. Fennell Co., Inc.
Jaquith Industries Inc.; Jasper Desk Company, Inc.; JELD-
WEN; Jesco Industries Inc.; Jobbers Moving & Storage; John
Sterling Corporation; Johnsen Trailer Sales, Inc.;
Johnsonville Sausage LLC; Jorgensen Conveyors, Inc.; Kapstone
Paper and Packaging Corp.; Kell-Strom Tool Company Inc.;
Kercher Machine Works, Inc.; Keystone Nitewear Co. Inc.;
Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association; Klann
Incorporated; Kleenair Products Co.; Koike Aronson, Inc.;
Koller-Craft Plastic Products; Konz Wood Products.
Kuryakyn Holdings, Inc.; L.D. McCauley, LLC; La Deau Hinge
Company; Lamiglas, Inc.; Lapp Insulators LLC; Laserage
Technology Corporation; Layton Truck Equipment Co., LLC;
Leech Carbide; LEECO Spring International; Leed Himmel Ind.;
Lifoam Industries; Liftmoore, Inc.; Lord Corporation; Lovejoy
Tool Company, Inc.; LSI Industries Inc; LSI Metal Fabrication
Division of LSI Industries Inc.; LSI MidWest Lighting; Luick
Quality Gage & Tool, Inc.; Lunar Industries, Inc.; M&M Hi
Tech Fab, LLC.
Mack Boring and Parts Co.; Mansfield Industries Inc.;
Markel Corporation; Mar-Mac Wire, Inc.; Martindale Electric
Company; Massachusetts Container Corp.; Materials Processing,
Inc.; Mathews Brothers Company; Mathison Metalfab,
Inc.; Mazak Corporation; McAlpin Industries, Inc.;
McNaughton & Gunn, Inc.; McNichols Company; M-D Building
Products, Inc.; Meadows Mills Inc.; Merrick Pet Care;
Merritt Equipment Co.; Metal Moulding Corp.; Metal Powder
Industries Federation; Metal Products Company.
Metallized Carbon Corporation; Metals Service Center
Institute; Metalworks Inc.; MET-L-FLO Inc.; Metl-Span LLC;
MFRI, Inc.; Micro Abrasives Corporation; Mid Atlantic
Manufacturing & Hydraulics Inc.; Middletown Tube Works, Inc.;
Midmark Corporation; Midwest Fabricating Company; Midwest
Metal Products, Inc.; Mike-sells Potato Chip Company; Milbank
Manufacturing Company; Miles Fiberglass and Composets; Mina
Safety Appliances Co.; Mississippi Lime Company; Modern Metal
Processing, Inc.; Molded Fiber Glass Companies; Montana
Silversmiths Inc.
Moore Industries International Inc.; Morgan Ohare, Inc.;
MTD Products Inc.; MTH Pumps; Mullinix Packages, Inc.; N.C.
Industries, Inc.; NACCO Industries, Inc.; National
Association of Manufacturers; National Bronze Mfg.; National
Capital Flag Co. Inc.; National Ceramic Company; National
Solid Wastes Management Association; National Tube Form;
Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Nevada Heat
Treating, Inc.; Nevada Manufacturers Association; New Jersey
Business & Industry Association; Nordex, Incorporated; North
American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers.
North American Die Casting Association; North Dakota
Chamber of Commerce; North Dakota Petroleum Marketers & North
Dakota Retail Associations; Northeast PA Manufacturers &
Employers Association; Northeast Prestressed Products;
Northern Concrete Pipe Inc.; Nosco CTX; Nosco, Inc.; Novelis;
NPC, Inc.; O. F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc.; Oil City Iron Works,
Inc.; Oil-Dri Corporation of America; Olympian Precast, Inc.;
Olympian Precast, Inc.; OMCO Holdings, Inc.; Omega Design
Corporation; Omega Precision Corp.; Open-Ended Response; OSI/
ISI/SunnyMaids.
Paper Machinery Corporation; Parkway Products; Parts Depot
Inc.; Paulo Products Company; Pawling Corporation; Peerless
Saw Company; Pella Corporation; Pennsylvania Manufacturers'
Association; Penske Corporation; Penske Truck Leasing; Pepsi-
Cola Bottling Co., Inc. of Norton; Pepsi-Cola Bottling
Company of New Haven, MO; Pequot Tool & Mfg., Inc.; Perlick
Corporation; Pete Lien & Sons, Inc.; Peterson Manufacturing
Co.; PGT Industries, Inc.; Phoenix Electric Mfg. Co.; Pine
Hall Brick Co., Inc.; Plastic Molded Concepts.
Plasticolors, Inc.; Plastics One; PMF Industries, Inc.;
Polyfab Corp; Portec, Inc.; Power Curbers Inc.; PPG
Industries; PQ Corporation; Prairie Tool Co. Inc.; Precision
Automation Company, Inc.; Precision Machined Products
Association; Precision Steel Warehouse, Inc.; Pretzels, Inc.;
Price Pump Company; Printed Specialties Inc.; Process
Equipment, Inc.; Production Specialties Corporation; Quadrant
Tool and Manufacturing; Quality Chaser Company.
Radiant Steel Products Company; Radix Wire Company; Rain
Flow USA, Inc.; Rainey Road Holdings, Inc.; Rampe Mfg Co
Torque Transmission Division; Ramsey Products Corporation;
Ranco Fertiservice, Inc.; RdF Corporation; Red Bud
Industries, Inc.; Reed Mfg Services; Remanco Hydraulics Inc.;
Reuther Mold & Mfg. Co.; Riggs Industries and subsidiaries;
Roaring Spring Blank Book Co.; Roberts Automatic Products,
Inc.; Robroy Industries; Rock Industries, Inc.; RoMan
Manufacturing, Inc.; Roppe Corporation; Roquette America
Inc.; Roth Horowitz, LLC.
Route 94 Consulting; ROW, INC; RTI International Metals,
Inc.; Rugby Manufacturing; Schatz Bearing Corporation; Scot
Forge Company; Scott Douglas Porter, Esq.; Scott Metals Inc;
Seals Eastern Inc.; Searing Industries; SGS Tool Company;
Shar Systems, Inc; Showplace Wood Products, Inc.; Shultz
Steel Co; Signal Mountain Cement Company; Silbond
Corporation; Sioux Corporation; Siplast Inc.; Sirois Tool
Co., Inc.; SJE Rhombus.
Smith Setzer & Sons Inc; Solar Atmospheres Corporation;
Sommer Metalcraft Corporation; Southco Industries, Inc.;
Southeastern Hose Inc.; Southern Alloy Corporation; Southern
Champion Tray LP; Southland Tube, Inc,; Spirax Sarco, Inc.;
Spuncast, Inc.; St. Armands Baking Co.; Standex International
Corporation; Star Cutter Company; Star Iron Works, Inc.;
Steel Manufacturers Association; Steelscape, Inc.; Steffes
Corporation; Stellar Industries, Inc.; Sterking Engineering
Corp.; Sterling Engineering Corporation.
Sterling Machine Co. Inc.; Stone City Products, Inc.;
Stoner, Inc.; Stoneridge Inc.; Streator Dependable
Mfg. Strongwell; Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.; Suhner
Manufacturing, Inc.; Summers Manufacturing Co., Inc.;
Sunnyside Corporation; Superior Graphite Co.; Superior Oil
Company, Inc.; Superior Woodcraft, Inc.; Surpass Chemical
Co., Inc.; Swanson Industries, Inc.; Sweet Street
Desserts; Syncro Corporation; Systems Services of America,
Inc.
Tailored Label Products; TBEI, Inc.; TCI, LLC; Teakdecking
Systems Inc.; Techsys Chassis, Inc.; Tecumseh Packaging
Solutions, Inc.; Tegrant Corporation; TekTone Sound & Signal
Mfg., Inc.; Templeton Coal Company, Inc.; Tennessee Chamber
of Commerce & Industry; Tennsco Corp.; Ten-Tec, Inc.; Texas
Association of Business; Textile Rental Services Association
of America; The Adams Company; The Challenge Machinery
Company; The DUPPS Co.; The Envelope Printery, Inc.; The Hill
and Griffith Company; The Kirk-Habicht Company.
The Knapheide Manufacturing Company; The Manitowoc Company,
Inc.; The MasonBox Co.; The Nelson Co. Inc.; The ROHO Group;
The Schwan Food Company; The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company; The
Sheffer Corporation; The Shockey Companies; The Timken
Company; ThermoSafe Brands; Thomas Instrument Co.; Thompson
Management Associates; Thomson Lamination Company, Inc.;
ThyssenKrupp Waupaca Inc; Tiefenbach North America, LLC;
Tiffin Powder Coating Specialists; Timber Truss Housing
Systems, Inc.; Torco Inc.; Transducers Direct, LLC.
Transportation Costing Group, Inc.; Tree Top, Inc.; Trim-
Tex, Inc.; Trumpf Inc.; Tubodyne Company Inc.; Twin City
Roofing, LLC; Tyco Electronics; Ultra Tech Machinery Inc.;
Unex Manufacturing Inc.; United Equipment Accessories, Inc.;
Uniweld Products Inc.; Unlimited Services; USG Corporation;
Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company; Valley Converting Co.,
Inc.; Vanamatic Company; Ventahood, Ltd; Vermeer; Virginia
Manufacturers Association.
W M I; W. R. Meadows, Inc. Wagstaff, Inc.; Wahpeton
Breckinridge Area Chamber of Commerce; Walnut Custom Homes,
Inc.; Walters Brothers Lumber Mfg., Inc.; Warren
Distribution, Inc; Waste Equipment Technology Association;
Waukesh Metal Products; Weiss-Aug Co. Inc.; Weldon Solutions;
Werthan Packaging, Inc.; WESCO International, Inc.; Western
Extrusions; Westside Finishing Co., Inc.; Wildeck,
Inc.; Williams-Pyro, Inc.; Winslow LifeRaft Company; Wire
Belt Company of America.
Wisconsin Valley Concrete Products Co.; Wood Connection,
Inc; Wood's Powr-Grip Co. Inc.; WPT Power Transmission Corp.;
Xybix Systems, Inc; Yancey's Fancy, Inc.; Young's Welding,
Inc.; Zippo Manufacturing Co.
Apartment & Office Building Association; Arlington Chamber
of Commerce; Associated Builders & Contractors--Virginia
Chapter; Associated General Contractors; Bedford Area Chamber
of Commerce; Bristol Chamber of Commerce; Chase City Chamber
of Commerce; Dinwiddie County Chamber of Commerce; Dulles
Regional Chamber of Commerce; Fairfax Chamber of Commerce;
Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce; Goochland
Chamber of Commerce; Greater Augusta Regional Chamber of
Commerce; Greater Bluefield Chamber of Commerce; Greater
Reston Chamber of Commerce; Greater Richmond Chamber of
Commerce; Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce.
Halifax County Chamber of Commerce; Hampton Roads Chamber
of Commerce; Hampton Roads Utility and Heavy Contractors
Association; Harrisonburg-Rockingham Chamber of Commerce;
Heavy Construction Contractors Association; Home Building
Association of Richmond; Home Builders Association of
Virginia; Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce; Loudoun County
Chamber of Commerce; Lynchburg Regional Chamber of Commerce;
NAIOP Northern Virginia; National Federation of Independent
Business; Northern Virginia Technology Council; Oilheat
Association of Central Virginia; Old Dominion Highway
Contractors Association; Petersburg Chamber of Commerce;
Precast Concrete Association of Virginia; Prince William
County-Greater Manassas Chamber of Commerce; Prince William
Regional Chamber of Commerce; Richmond Area Municipal
Contractors Association; Roanoke Regional Chamber of
Commerce; Smith Mountain Lake Chamber of Commerce.
Virginia Agribusiness Council; Virginia Apartment &
Management Association; Virginia Asian Chamber of Commerce;
Virginia Assisted Living Association; Virginia Association of
Broadcasters; Virginia Association of Health Plans; Virginia
Association of Chain Drug Stores; Virginia Association for
[[Page S518]]
Commercial Real Estate; Virginia Association for Home Care
and Hospice; Virginia Association of Nonprofit Homes for the
Aging; Virginia Association of Roofing Contractors; Virginia
Autobody Legislative Committee; Virginia Automatic
Merchandising Association; Virginia Automobile Dealers
Association; Virginia Biotechnology Association; Virginia
Business Council; Virginia Cable Telecommunications
Association; Virginia Chamber of Commerce; Virginia Coal
Association; Virginia Economic Developers Association.
Virginia FREE; Virginia Health Care Association; Virginia
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Virginia Hospital and
Healthcare Association; Virginia Hospitality and Travel
Association; Virginia Manufacturers Association; Virginia
Motorcycle Dealers Association; Virginia Petroleum,
Convenience, and Grocery Association; Virginia Poultry
Federation; Virginia Propane Gas Association; Virginia Ready-
Mixed Concrete Association; Virginia Retail Federation;
Virginia Retail Merchants Association; Virginia
Transportation Construction Alliance; Virginia Trucking
Association; Virginia Wholesalers & Distributors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator from Ohio is
recognized.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise in support of the
confirmation of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.
It is policymakers--not outside organizations, it is not political
strategists, it is not anti-union activists, and it is not pro-union
advocates--who are making this decision. It is policymakers--100
Members of the Senate who are asked to confirm the nomination of Craig
Becker to serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board,
NLRB.
It is something we have done in this country since Franklin
Roosevelt, in the 1930s, when the National Labor Relations Board was
formed. Decade after decade, this body has voted for National Labor
Relations Board nominees who are philosophically pro-union,
philosophically anti-union or promanagement and not so promanagement.
Yet, with Craig Becker, the Republicans have drawn a line in the sand--
something that simply didn't used to happen around here. When I hear my
colleagues say we can't rush this through, only in the Senate, when
somebody is nominated by the President in April--how many months ago is
that--8 or 9 months ago--would anybody say we are rushing it through by
doing it in February. I guess it is 10 months ago. It doesn't make
sense to me.
Since its creation 75 years ago, the NLRB has served a critical and
independent function: Protecting workers against unfair labor practices
and protecting businesses against unfair allegations. They struck a
balance because both sides have been represented. Those with a strong
management philosophy and those with a strong union philosophy have
worked together on the NLRB.
I have listened to Craig Becker in front of our Committee that
Chairman Harkin chairs and of which Senator Enzi is the ranking member.
I have listened to Mr. Becker sit there and tell us when he is in
negotiations with management--yes, he did represent labor unions. But
we are not allowed to have them on the NLRB? Is that the new idea--that
Republicans don't want anybody with that philosophy, anybody who might
have worked for a labor union? Do we not want them on the Board because
they actually believe workers should have more rights rather than less
rights--the way it was during the Bush administration, when the
Department of Labor did everything they could to weaken labor rights,
when we saw the middle class in these last 10 years shrink because
workers were denied the rights to fight back when they wanted to join a
union or when workers simply wanted to get backpay or when workers were
mistreated and earned their pay but weren't getting it. We needed
somebody in that administration to fight for them, but they didn't have
that at the Department of Labor. I guess those are the good old days we
should return to.
Even though we have done it this way for decades, people with
promanagement philosophies and pro-union philosophies getting on this
Board--and as Mr. Becker said in his testimony, when he is part of a
union-management negotiation, when he is representing a union, he
understands what both sides need to understand. He tries to put himself
in the shoes of the other side. If you are a union representative, you
know management has interests that are legitimate and they have goals
they want; and you know management, generally, is going to play
straight. If you are on the management side, you look at the union the
same way.
That is how Mr. Becker has been trained and how he thinks. That is
why I know, even though he has a pro-union philosophy, he will be fair-
minded. I know he will serve in the tradition of NLRB appointees from
both parties for decades. He will serve in the tradition of other NLRB
appointees--some pro-union and some promanagement. Yet Republicans,
since April--Mr. Becker was nominated in April--have tried every trick
in the book to keep him off the NLRB. So that is April, May, June,
July, August, September, October, November, December, January, and now
it is mid-February. The Republicans are saying: Why are we rushing this
through? Are they so confident they are going to defeat President
Barack Obama in the next election that they don't want to put anybody
with his philosophy on the NLRB, and do they think they can stall until
January 2013? Is that the way they want to run the government?
Unfortunately, when nominee after nominee--we saw it last week with
Patricia Smith. If they have anything to do with siding with workers
and with being proworker or promiddle class, then we cannot rush. We
have to keep asking questions.
The fact is, you know, Madam President, representing the State of New
York, what this has meant. What we are seeing is, they asked dozens of
questions. In fact, there have been more questions asked of Craig
Becker for the NLRB than of Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S.
Supreme Court. Craig Becker's isn't a lifetime appointment. It is an
important job, but it is not as important as the Supreme Court, which
is a lifetime appointment. Yet they have gone after him with more
viciousness, questions, and suspicions--and I might add more cynicism--
than perhaps any nominee since I have been in the Senate.
The NLRB matters to workers and to businesses. They simply cannot do
their jobs unless we fill these appointments. That is what the
Republicans are blocking. I would say it isn't good for business to
keep these jobs open. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle,
on the health care bill, protected the insurance companies and the drug
companies, and on the trade bills, they protect the companies that
outsource jobs overseas. I know they like to do that. They are not
protecting business when they keep Craig Becker off the NLRB. What they
are doing is continuing the dysfunction of the NLRB because too many of
those jobs are vacant.
That is why it is important the NLRB protects the rights of workers
to organize into unions and, equally important, it protects the rights
of businesses to air their grievances. I simply don't understand why
most of my colleagues on the other side are opposed to giving working
Americans fair treatment. Unions exist in this country and businesses
exist. Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
rather only one of those groups existed, but our economy works best
when they work together and get along. If they want to take these
labor-management fights, as they have, to the floor of the Senate, what
does that mean for our future and for the middle class?
The Chair knows, whether it is in Albany or Buffalo or Schenectady,
NY, or whether it is Toledo or Youngstown or Mansfield, OH, a union
working well with businesses--when labor and management work together--
strengthens the middle class. When we have this kind of class warfare
on the floor of the Senate, when my friends on the other side of the
aisle will do anything to keep someone who has a pro-union philosophy
out of an appointed position--again, in April the President nominated
Mr. Becker, so that is May, June, July, August, September, October,
November, December, January and now it is February and they say we are
rushing it. I don't think anybody in America--even the most lethargic,
slow-moving, half-dead operation in the country--thinks it is rushing
it when it takes us 10 months to get somebody through.
We know what they did on the health care bill--delay, delay, delay,
delay.
[[Page S519]]
That is arguable and that is a difficult and complex issue. But on
this? Just to be clear, there is no doubt about the qualifications of
Craig Becker.
He earned his bachelor and law degrees from Yale University. He
served as an editor on the Yale Law Journal. He clerked for the Chief
Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for 30 years.
This is not some ``newbie'' labor pawn nobody knows anything about who
does not have experience. For almost 30 years he has practiced labor
and employment law with the highest skill and fairness in front of
nearly every U.S. Court of Appeals and in front of the U.S. Supreme
Court.
He has been professor at some of the Nation's premier law schools. He
has earned the trust and admiration of students, faculty, and opponents
of labor-management kinds of discussions. His scholarly works have been
published in the Nation's leading law journals and periodicals. His
scholarly works are also mandatory reading for law students taking
labor and employment courses, whether they are prolabor or
promanagement. He is often cited by fellow lawyers and scholars. In
fact, 66 professors of labor and employment law from our Nation's
premier law schools have described Becker as a nominee with
``unparalleled qualifications . . . whose scholarship reflects great
respect for and deep knowledge of the law. He weighs and considers all
arguments in a fair and honest manner.''
That sounds like the kind of nominee we want on the National Labor
Relations Board. I would add, most importantly, I said a moment ago to
serve the interests of the middle class, to serve the interests of this
country, we need to fill these jobs with qualified people. It is bad
for labor not to have Craig Becker on that Board. It is bad for
management not to have Craig Becker on that Board. That is clear by
what respected management lawyers have said. They have urged the Senate
to quickly confirm Mr. Becker--these are management lawyers--because of
his fairness and his sound judgment.
He has answered, as I said, in writing, more than 300 questions from
the Republicans on the Senate HELP Committee.
This is not very entertaining. I was almost entertained when my
friends--and I have heard at least three Senators on the other side of
the aisle do this with Craig Becker's appointment. They brought up
ACORN. When Republicans cannot think of anything else to say, when they
cannot think of any arguments that work, they throw in ACORN: He knew
somebody at ACORN; he must have had something to do with ACORN. If no
arguments work, it is time to try ACORN out and tie Craig Becker right
to ACORN, whatever ACORN is. It would be amusing if they did not use it
time after time. He must be a bad nominee because he worked with
somebody from ACORN or he worked with somebody from the Service
Employees International Union or he worked with Governor Blagojevich in
Illinois.
That is the kind of guilt by association that I thought this
institution stopped doing 55 years ago when Joe McCarthy was censured,
that we were not going to continue to use guilt by association.
It might be ACORN, the SEIU--and I apologize; I need to say this,
Madam President. My daughter works for the SEIU. So before somebody
points out his daughter works for SEIU, that is why he is doing it--the
fact is, Craig Becker served honorably, he served very appropriately,
and he is very qualified. It is about time we do this. It has been 10
months. We have waited too long. I ask my colleagues to put aside some
of their biases. He has answered 300 questions. Vote to confirm Craig
Becker.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to share a few thoughts on the
nomination of Judge Joseph A. Greenaway to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals on which I think we will be voting later today. I look forward
to supporting his nomination. He has a good record as a district court
judge. I think almost all of my colleagues, if not all, will support
him. But I wish to take a moment to correct the record regarding some
allegations that have been made by my Democratic colleagues regarding
the processing of this nomination.
Sometimes we have controversial nominees, such as Mr. Becker. And if
anyone would care to listen to Senator Enzi's comments, they will see
why there are legitimate concerns about that nomination. Some of the
nominees are not controversial and should move forward at a steady pace
for confirmation in the Senate. Most of the nominations that have been
submitted for positions in the Federal Government in the Department of
Justice and on the Federal courts have moved forward rapidly without
controversy. If one is controversial, the Senate should take its time
and give full consideration of it.
Last week my colleague from New Jersey accused the Republicans of
``objecting'' every time the majority leader tried to schedule a vote
on Judge Greenaway. I have to say my colleagues are seriously
misinformed and I am not happy to be unfairly criticized for holding up
the nomination. Let me explain exactly what happened.
As Chairman Leahy has acknowledged, the majority leader, Senator
Reid, did not seek Republican consent to proceed with this nomination
on the floor of the Senate until 2 weeks ago, and that was late on a
Friday afternoon. The Republicans were able to clear the nomination and
allow it to move forward with a modest time agreement before a final
vote and allow the kind of discussion that we are having today.
Ironically, the Judiciary Committee, however, was not even able to
process Judge Greenaway's nomination to move forward with it, which was
submitted to the Senate in June by President Obama. President Obama
submitted the nomination in June, but the committee could not move
forward with a vote until September. Why was that? The reason was one
of the home State Democratic Senators down here complaining failed to
send in their blue slip. Senator Leahy is not going to move a nominee
without the consent of the home State Senators--and I respect him for
that. He is the Democratic chairman of the committee, but he has a
policy, as his predecessors all had, that he is going to give the home
State Senators the opportunity to approve a nominee before he even has
a hearing in committee.
The nominee was delayed 4 months by a failure of the home State
Senators--or at least one of them--to acknowledge their approval by
returning what we refer to as a blue slip. After that occurred, the
committee promptly moved forward with a hearing and unanimously voted
for Judge Greenaway's nomination in October.
Today is the time the majority leader has chosen as the time he
desired to bring it up for a vote. He could have brought it up in
October, November, December, or January. He chose to bring it up now. I
am not one who thinks it is my fault that it has not been brought up.
The same thing happened to Judge Beverly Martin to the Eleventh
Circuit. She was unanimously approved by the committee and had the
support of her home State Senators. Months went by before she got her
vote. It was unanimous to confirm her. It wasn't anybody's fault but
the Democratic leadership's fault.
My colleagues always complain about holding up nominees, and they
themselves are not moving them in an expeditious manner. Sometimes the
President is slow to make nominations. As a result, we get complaints
that it is the Republicans' fault. It is just not.
If we have an objection--a serious objection--that should be
respected, we should state it, and we should bring it to the floor and
discuss the nomination, as is occurring with Mr. Becker.
Compare that to the unreasonable delays of judicial nominations that
President Bush sought. For example, Shalom Stone was nominated for this
very seat. The reason it is vacant and the reason it is being filled
today is because Shalom Stone was blocked. Stone was nominated in July
of 2007 and was basically pocket-filibustered by the Democratic
majority. He never received a hearing in committee. He never even
received a hearing in committee. His nomination, therefore, lapsed at
the end of President Bush's term. That is how Judge Greenaway was
nominated.
[[Page S520]]
On average, President Bush's circuit nominees waited nearly a year
for confirmation--a year on average for circuit court nominees.
As for Judge Greenaway, he, like many of President Obama's nominees,
I am pleased to say, has openly rejected the empathy standard.
In his response to a followup question, Judge Greenaway stated this
about the controversial empathy standard:
Empathy cannot play a role in a judge's consideration of a
case or in determining what the law means. I have told
lawyers who appear before me that as a human being, I may
have empathy for their client, but as a judge, I have none
because that is not my job. The pure exercise of empathy in
decisionmaking would lead to unsound and inconsistent
decisions.
That is a solid statement of what I think most judges believe,
Republicans and Democrats alike. But, unfortunately, it is not the
philosophy stated by the President of the United States when he said he
was going to look for empathy in nominees to the bench.
Empathy is contrary to the oath a judge takes, which states:
I . . . do solemnly swear that I will administer justice
without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor
and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially
discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . .
That is the oath they take to be impartial. We need judges who are
honorable, intelligent, capable, and who understand their role to
enforce the laws as written and to be impartial as they carry out that
duty.
People talk about their backgrounds, their experiences--what are they
saying? They are saying that my background, my ethnicity, my religion,
my rural or urban environment allows me to see things in a way that may
be different and, therefore, I am empowered to bring those ideas,
concepts, and philosophies to my decisionmaking process, which I
suggest is very much akin to saying I believe I can bring my biases to
the decisionmaking process. They are directly contrary to the American
ideal of an impartial judge, a neutral umpire who calls balls and
strikes without regard for which team they are for or not for.
These are lifetime appointments. We look at these nominations
carefully. These nominees must demonstrate they will follow the plain
meaning of the law and not allow their own personal biases and
prejudices to influence their decisionmaking process.
Based on his testimony at the hearing, his assurances and answers to
followup questions, I believe Judge Greenaway will do that. I am proud
to support him as I have supported most of President Obama's nominees.
But we do have a responsibility to analyze these nominees' records, to
hold fair and rigorous hearings, to ask for additional time, if that is
necessary, to ensure each nominee is given the scrutiny that Congress
is required to give before the elevation to a lifetime appointment by
which they are no longer subject to review by the people of our
country. We allow them to be an independent branch, but we have to
insist that they be independent and objective as they render their
opinions.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, in 25 years in the Senate, this is the
first time I've seen a vote on a nominee to the National Labor
Relations Board fraught with such controversy and subject even to a
filibuster. But I regret to say it is controversy manufactured by the
Senate minority for only one reason--a filibuster as political tactic
to stonewall President Obama at every turn.
Consequently, this nomination is an important test of the minority, a
test of all those who for years under President Bush repeated and
repeated demands for ``up or down votes'' on nominees, and got them
without the kind of 8-month delays that have scuttled Craig Becker's
nomination.
It is also a test of whether the Senate minority will accept the
President's overtures to work together for the benefit of the American
people or whether they will continue to vote strictly along party lines
to obstruct those efforts for no reason other than political gains for
their party.
No one disputes that Craig Becker is one of the preeminent
authorities on labor law in the United States. He has taught at
Georgetown, UCLA, and the University of Chicago and has authored
numerous articles on labor and employment issues. He is a skilled
litigator, who has advocated for workers' interests in virtually all
Federal courts of appeals, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some of my colleagues have expressed concern about Mr. Becker's
nomination because of his academic writings. It is true that Mr. Becker
has published numerous articles on labor and employment law in
scholarly journals, including the Harvard Law Review and the Chicago
Law Review. His extensive writings argue for law labor reforms to allow
workers to exercise their rights to associate and organize. But since
when has there been anything disqualifying about taking a critical
approach to existing law and challenging convention in his field?
Some in the minority object to Mr. Becker simply because he is a
union lawyer--a counsel to both the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees
International Union. But that hardly disqualifies him. The Senate has
consistently confirmed Board members with backgrounds in unions as well
as in management. And Mr. Becker has repeatedly said that he will
approach all the matters before the Board impartially and with open
mind--just what we need and expect at an agency as independent as the
NLRB.
Here is what he said at his confirmation hearing:
As an attorney, I have sat across the table from management
and also on the same side of the table, in both postures
gaining an understanding of employers' concerns and often
finding common ground between labor and management. It is
this range of experience that, should I be confirmed, I will
draw on in collaborating with my fellow Board Members to
fairly, efficiently and faithfully apply the law.
Mr. Becker is widely respected by the legal community and management
lawyers alike. Last month, 66 labor law professors from the Nation's
top law schools wrote Senate leaders urging his immediate confirmation
and attesting to his ``integrity, fairness, and dedication to advancing
Congress' purposes in adopting federal labor law and to the role of the
NLRB.''
And yet it has taken almost 8 months for us to get to this point--
just to reach the point of finally getting to vote on his nomination.
It is an 8-month journey that underscores just how committed the
minority has been to prevent President Obama from staffing the
executive branch of government or moving any agenda forward.
Mr. Becker was nominated by the President in July 2009, and in
October the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
approved his nomination--and it did so with bipartisan support from
Senator Enzi and Senator Murkowski.
But after that, Senator McCain placed a ``hold'' on his nomination,
forcing the President to resubmit it last month. And then, at the
insistence of the Senate minority, the HELP Committee was forced to
hold a hearing the nomination, something the Committee hasn't had to do
for an NLRB nominee since 1980.
Moreover, Mr. Becker dutifully answered hundreds of written questions
from Republicans--more questions than Supreme Court Justice Sonia
Sotomayor had to answer during her confirmation process. And when the
Committee voted a second time on Mr. Becker, not one Republican voted
for him, not even those who had supported him the first time around.
Critics have attacked Mr. Becker for his work on behalf of unions in
the past. But most labor lawyers devote their careers either to
representing unions and workers or to representing management. This
avoids conflicts of interest. We have historically confirmed NLRB
nominees from both backgrounds, and indeed the package of nominations
before the Senate includes Brian Hayes, who practiced for many years as
a management-side labor lawyer and has served as Republican HELP
Committee labor counsel.
The fact of the matter is that the minority want to turn this
nomination into a litmus test on legislation we have yet to consider--
legislation on reforming how workers exercise their right to organize.
The criticism repeated most often of Mr. Becker is that he would use
his position on the NLRB to institute a binding system for organizing
that would allow workers to select a union by signing cards. That
system is backed by organized labor.
[[Page S521]]
But here is what is important. Making a card check system binding on
employers is something Craig Becker has said he would not and could not
do. He is being filibustered over something he has specifically pledged
not to do--and which is not the question before us today. It is no
surprise that in his role as a labor lawyer, Mr. Becker has been a
strong supporter of a legislative proposal to make it possible for
workers to organize by signing cards in favor of a union. But he has
clearly stated--and accurately stated--that only Congress can take such
action. This confirmation is not, nor should it be about the Employee
Free Choice Act legislation that we have yet to debate and consider.
This is about ensuring that the NLRB can operate. And it is about
whether or not a qualified aspiring public servant will be allowed to
serve. As you know, the NLRB plays a critical role in protecting
workers' rights. And yet, in the last 2 years, the NLRB has operated
with only two of its five members. And the courts are split on whether
a two-member NLRB can validly issue decisions. The Supreme Court is set
to decide the matter later this year.
Meanwhile, though, the NLRB struggles along with a majority of its
seats vacant--and I am sorry to be forced to acknowledge that may be
exactly what our Republican colleagues want. Well over a year after
President Obama's inauguration, nominees to key positions in the
executive branch are still awaiting confirmation because they have been
placed on ``hold'' by the minority. In most cases, the objections to
the nominees have nothing to do with the nominee's qualifications and
everything to do with parochial interests. Whether holding a nominee to
try to steer a Federal contract to a State or to express opposition to
Canadian tobacco legislation, the minority is turning the Senate's
power to advise and consent into the power to bully and extort and,
above all, to prevent Barack Obama from having the people in place
necessary to govern effectively. And those who lose in this game are
not Democrats, it is the American people. They need the executive
branch to execute the laws we have passed and we should let it.
I think in the elections of 2006, 2008, and yes in the special
election in Massachusetts in 2010, we have witnessed a rejection of the
polarized and too often murky ways of doing business in Washington. But
I regret to say, there is no better example of that kind of Washington
backroom business than the way the minority has behaved on the
nomination of Craig Becker.
And so, I respectfully ask my Republican colleagues to put aside the
gamesmanship on this nomination and take a hard look at Craig Becker,
his testimony, his record and his commitment to the rights of working
men and women. He doesn't have to be your first choice to head the
NLRB. But you have to acknowledge that the President has the right to
make his choice. Advise and consent is not a blank check to delay and
obstruct. And voting along party lines, especially on this nomination,
with no regard for the broader national interest is not what any of us
were sent here to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
February 4 order with respect to the Executive Calendar be further
modified to provide that the debate time be extended until 4 p.m., and
that at 4 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the nomination of Joseph
Greenaway, with the time until then divided as previously ordered, and
that the remaining provisions of the February 4 order, as modified,
still be in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, with only half an hour to go, we are
here today to consider two things, but I think most important--and what
is on everyone's mind now--is the nomination of Harold Craig Becker to
serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board.
I first wish to thank my colleague from Ohio for a very poignant and
pointed and very clear kind of laying out of what this is really all
about. So I thank Senator Brown for that.
While I am always proud to discuss the accomplishments of a highly
qualified nominee such as Mr. Becker, it is unfortunate we got to this
point. Last year, we had an agreement with the Republicans on the HELP
Committee that we would move Mr. Becker's nomination as a package,
along with the other two pending nominees for the Board, one of whom is
a Republican. Well, what happened is, at the end of the year, under the
rules of the Senate, one Senator on the Republican side objected to
having Mr. Becker continue on the calendar. It is clearly their right,
but they did that, and so it went back to the White House and then came
back to us.
I was asked, as the chairman of the committee, to have a hearing on
Mr. Becker. We haven't had a hearing on a nominee for the NLRB since
1985. We had a hearing for someone to be chairman, but just for a
member, not since 1985. Since that time, we have always worked together
in a bipartisan fashion to have a package. When there is a Republican
President, it is usually two Republicans and one Democrat. When there
is a Democratic President, it is usually two Democrats and one
Republican. But we have never had any hearings on this.
I didn't have to have a hearing on Mr. Becker, but I decided to bend
over backward and say: Look, OK, fine, let's have a hearing on Mr.
Becker. I could have had a hearing with all three of them. I could have
had the Republican up there too. Maybe we could have given him 400
questions. But I don't like to play those games.
So we had a hearing, and Mr. Becker came. I thought he presented
himself extremely well, answered all the questions, and then we moved
ahead on the nomination. But we had that package before, and that
package was supported on a bipartisan basis. But once Mr. Becker got
separated from the package by the actions of one Republican Senator, as
I just mentioned, well, now it is OK to move two of them but not Mr.
Becker. Well, I find that disconcerting. I find it very disconcerting.
That agreement has now been abandoned. It is too bad because there are
many other important ways we could be using our time in the Senate
rather than on just a routine nomination.
That is not to say the work of the NLRB is not important. It is
critical, especially in these troubled and turbulent times. The NLRB is
a small agency, but its mission is large. Listen to the words of the
National Labor Relations Act that sets up the NLRB:
The NLRB's mission is to encourage the practice and
procedure of collective bargaining and to protect the
exercise by workers of full freedom of association.
Let me say that again:
. . . to encourage the practice and procedure of collective
bargaining.
That doesn't say the NLRB is just supposed to sit back and say: Well,
we don't care whether someone is unionized or not unionized; we don't
care whether someone is able to use collective bargaining. That is not
the law of the land. Read the law. They are to encourage the practice
and procedure of collective bargaining. So when I hear people get up
and say that someone on the Board is going to be pro-union or pro-
collective bargaining, I say: Well, that is kind of in keeping with the
very words that establish the National Labor Relations Board.
In today's challenging economy, when workers are vulnerable, worrying
about their future, it is critically important to have strong
leadership on the Board that understands its mandate. I believe very
strongly in the mission of the NLRB, and I have a deep respect and
admiration for the dedicated people who work there. But I have made no
secret of the fact that I am troubled by some aspects of the Board's
recent performance.
In recent years, the Board is not doing all it can to inform workers
of their rights or to assess appropriate penalties for repeat violators
of our labor laws. And that is not to mention the excessive delays at
the Board, because we know justice delayed is justice denied in many
cases.
There is no real penalty for violating workers' rights. In the last 4
years, the median time to process an unfair labor practice charge at
the Board has averaged about 782 days. That is more than 2 years. The
median time between the petition for an election and the time when the
Board certifies the results of a disputed election is 308 days. What
does this mean? It means that if someone is exercising his or her legal
right
[[Page S522]]
to help organize a union and the employer fires that person, which is a
violation of the National Labor Relations Act, and that employee then
files a case with the NLRB, it takes over 2 years to get to it. Well,
that person is fired. What does that person do? Suppose that person--he
or she--is married; they have a couple of kids and they need that
income, so they have to get another job. They have to get another job.
Now 2 years have gone by, and the National Labor Relations Board finds
in favor of the employee who was wrongly fired. What does the employer
have to do? The employer has to pay back wages minus any other wages
that employee made during that intervening time. Well, if that employee
was lucky enough to get a job that paid as well, that means the
employer pays nothing--nothing. So is it any wonder employers feel they
can just fire people willy-nilly for exercising their right to form a
union, when there is really no penalty?
That is what is happening today. It is a serious problem, and we have
to put this agency back on track. They have to close down that amount
of time. I am confident Craig Becker can be an important part of that
effort. He is one of the preeminent labor law thinkers in the United
States and, I might add, a proud son of the State of Iowa, born and
raised in Iowa. His father was a professor at the university. He has
taught labor law at some of our finest law schools, including
Georgetown, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, and he has authored
numerous articles on labor and employment issues. He is also a skilled
litigator who has advocated for workers' interests in the highest
courts of this land. He has argued cases in virtually every court of
appeals and before the U.S. Supreme Court. I have met with him and
spoken with him at length, and I know he will be an invaluable addition
to the NLRB. He is an expert on the law, he knows the Board, and he
brings a tremendous depth of experience to this important position.
His impressive accomplishments have earned the respect of his
colleagues in the bar and his colleagues in the academy. This committee
has received several letters of recommendation from management-side
attorneys--people who have litigated against Mr. Becker as
adversaries--praising his virtues and his potential as a Board member.
This chart reflects the comments of one such attorney:
Over the years, I have worked with Mr. Becker on a number
of complex issues and cases. Although we were both aggressive
advocates for our respective clients and their positions, we
were always able to have an open dialogue. I believe that Mr.
Becker always took the time to understand the issues from the
employer's side, and was willing to work creatively toward
amicable resolutions of the issues. Based on my many
experiences, I believe that Mr. Becker's integrity is
exceptional, as is his knowledge of labor law, and he will be
fair, hard-working, and an asset to the NLRB Board.
That is a quote from an attorney who represents management.
Another one said:
I have read of the concerns expressed by some that Mr.
Becker would prove ``doctrinaire'' and/or biased toward
unions in his application of the NLRA. It is my honest
opinion, based on firsthand experience dealing with him, that
these concerns are completely unfounded. On the contrary, I
am convinced that Mr. Becker would demonstrate fairness,
integrity, sound judgment, and an abiding respect for all the
Congressionally mandated rights of employers, unions, and
employees alike. I respectfully urge you to support his
confirmation.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record both of the letters from which I have just quoted, along with
other letters and an endorsement from more than 60 law professors.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Laner Muchin Dombrow Becker Levin and Tominberg, Ltd.,
January 29, 2010.
Re Confirmation of Craig Becker as a Member of the NLRB.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: As a lawyer who
has represented employers in the private and public sectors
for over (30) years, I am writing to describe my experiences
with Craig Becker.
Over the years, I have worked with Mr. Becker on a number
of complex issues and cases that had significant implications
for his union clients, and my employer clients. Although we
were both aggressive advocates for our respective clients and
their positions, we were always able to have an open
dialogue. I believe that Mr. Becker always took the time to
understand the issues from the employer's side, and was
willing to work creatively toward amicable resolutions of the
issues. In other words, he is a problem-solver, a
characteristic that is highly-valued in a lawyer.
Based on my many experiences, I believe that Mr. Becker's
integrity is exceptional, as is his knowledge of labor law,
and he will be fair, hard-working, and an asset to the
National Labor Relations Board.
Very truly yours,
Joseph M. Gagliardo.
____
Sonnenschein Nath &
Rosenthal LLP,
January 28, 2010.
Re Confirmation of Craig Becker as a Member of the NLRB.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: As an attorney who, for more than
47 years, has practiced exclusively in the area of Labor and
Employment Law representing management, I am writing to urge
the confirmation of Craig Becker as a Member of the National
Labor Relations Board.
I have had the opportunity to work together with and in
opposition to Mr. Becker on a number of matters involving a
significant number of employers and employees, including
litigation and collective bargaining negotiations.
Throughout, he has consistently demonstrated an impressive
grasp and appreciation of and deeply felt commitment and
dedication to the principles enunciated by Congress and
embodied in the National Labor Relations Act.
I have read of the concerns expressed by some that Mr.
Becker would prove ``doctrinaire'' and/or biased toward
unions in his application of the NLRA. It is my honest
opinion, based upon first-hand experience dealing with him,
that these concerns are completely unfounded. On the
contrary, I am convinced that Mr. Becker would demonstrate
fairness, integrity, sound judgment and an abiding respect
for all of the Congressionally mandated rights of employers,
unions, and employees alike. I respectfully urge you to
support his confirmation.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Marcus.
____
New York University,
School of Law Faculty of Law,
New York, NY, January 19, 2010.
Re Confirmation of Craig Becker as a Member of the NLRB
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mike Enzi,
Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi: I have
practiced and taught labor and employment law for over 30
years, hold the Dwight D. Opperman professorship at New York
University School of Law, direct NYU's Center for Labor and
Employment Law, and serve as Chief Reporter for the American
Law Institute's Restatement (Third) of Employment Law.
I am writing in support of the confirmation of Craig Becker
to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or
Board), and I do on the following basis.
The President, in my view, should enjoy a broad latitude in
selecting members of his administration, including members of
independent agencies like the NLRB. Congress has the
responsibility to make sure that the President's selections
do not have disqualifying problems of competence or
character; if the President's nominees do pass that test and
fall within a broad zone of acceptability, Congress has a
reciprocal duty to confirm the President's choices. That is
particularly true with respect to the NLRB. There is a good
deal of controversy over whether the NLRB still functions as
an effective agency in enforcing statutory rights and
obligations. Much of this controversy has played a role in
the debates over the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, still
under consideration in Congress. It is therefore in the
interest of all--employees, employers, unions, judges and
lawyers--that the Board operate with a full complement
reflecting the various Presidential choices over time as to
the best people for the job.
It is clear that Mr. Becker passes the tests of competence
and character and falls within the broad zone of
acceptability. Although I have sometimes disagreed with his
legal positions and his writings, I have consistently found
his work to be the product of a highly intelligent,
thoughtful person who knows and understands the labor law
materials and is open to reasoned discussion. Based on my
interactions with him, I am confident that he will be a most
able member of this distinguished agency.
[[Page S523]]
I urge you to confirm Mr. Becker as a member of the Board.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further,
please advise.
Sincerely,
Samuel Estreicher.
____
University of California,
School of Law,
Irvine, CA, January 21, 2010.
Re Confirmation of Craig Becker as a Member of the NLRB.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: As teachers and
scholars of labor law, we write to express our strong support
for the confirmation of Craig Becker to be a Member of the
National Labor Relations Board. We believe firmly that, if
confirmed, Mr. Becker will prove to be one of the most
respected Board Members in the history of the NLRB.
Mr. Becker possesses unparalleled qualifications to be a
Member of the Board. He has practiced labor law for many
years and also taught and written extensively about labor law
and related subjects. Mr. Becker has had an enormous range of
practical experience in the field of labor law, having
represented a broad range of unions in the public and the
private sector as well as many individual workers, both union
members and nonmembers. He has argued cases in virtually
every United States Court of Appeals and in the United States
Supreme Court, many of them among the most important labor
law cases of the last several decades. He has also taught
labor law at several of our nation's finest law schools,
including the University of Chicago, Georgetown and UCLA. His
scholarship reflects a great respect for and deep knowledge
of the law and weighs and considers all arguments in a fair
and honest manner. His articles are widely cited, regularly
used in law school classes, and admired by labor law scholars
across the political spectrum.
Despite Mr. Becker's obvious qualifications to be a Member
of the NLRB, his opponents have made a series of misleading
and inaccurate statements about him and, in particular, about
his published work. We urge anyone considering Mr. Becker's
nomination not to rely on sound bites, fragments taken out of
context, and misquotations, but to actually read Mr. Becker's
scholarly writing.
Those of us who know Mr. Becker personally as well as those
of us who have read his work and are familiar with his
professional reputation can attest to his integrity,
fairness, and dedication to advancing Congress' purposes in
adopting federal labor law and to the role of the NLRB.
Without qualification we urge prompt confirmation of Mr.
Becker to be a member of the NLRB.
Sincerely,
Catherine Fisk.
Institutional affiliations listed for purposes of
identification only.
I am authorized to state that the following have read this
letter and join it.
James Brudney, Ohio State University, Moritz College of
Law; Cynthia Estlund, New York University School of Law;
Benjamin, Sachs Harvard Law School; David Abraham, University
of Miami School of Law; James Atleson, State University of
New York at Buffalo School of Law; Mark Barenberg, Columbia
University Law School; Esta Bigler, Cornell University ILR
School; Susan Bisom-Rapp, Thomas Jefferson Law School;
Christopher Cameron, Southwestern University Law School;
Susan Carle, American University, Washington College of Law;
Kenneth Casebeer, University of Miami Law School; Carin
Clauss, University of Wisconsin Law School; Lance Compa,
Cornell University ILR School; Laura Cooper, University of
Minnesota Law School; Roberto Corrada, Denver University
School of Law; Marion Crain, Washington University School of
Law; Charles Craver, George Washington University Law School;
llen Dannin, Penn State University Dickinson College of Law;
Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, Indiana University, Bloomington--School
of Law; Henry Drummonds, Lewis & Clark--Northwestern School
of Law; Fred Feinstein, University of Maryland School of
Public Policy;
Janice Fine, Rutgers University School of Management and
Labor Relations; Matthew Finkin, University of Illinois Law
School; Michael Fischl, University of Connecticut Law School;
William Forbath, University of Texas Law School; Ruben
Garcia, California Western School of Law; Julius Getman,
University of Texas Law School; Michael Goldberg, Widener
University School of Law; Alvin Goldman, University of
Kentucky Law School; Jennifer Gordon, Fordham University Law
School; Robert Gorman, University of Pennsylvania Law School;
William B. Gould, Stanford University Law School; Joseph
Grodin, University of California, Hastings College of Law;
Michael Hayes, University of Baltimore Law School; Dorothy
Hill, Albany Law School; William Hines, University of Iowa
School of Law; Ann Hodges, University of Richmond Law School;
Alan Hyde, Rutgers University Law School, Newark; Linda
Kerber, University of Iowa College of Law and Department of
History; Karl Klare, Northeastern University Law School;
Thomas Kohler, Boston College Law School; Howard Lesnick,
University of Pennsylvania Law School; Ariana Levinson,
University of Louisville, Louis Brandeis School of Law; Anne
Marie Lofaso, University of West Virginia Law School; Deborah
Malamud, New York University Law School; Martin Malin,
Chicago-Kent College of Law; Carlin Meyer, New York Law
School; Gary Minda, Brooklyn Law School; Charles Morris,
Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law; Maria
Ontiveros, University of San Francisco School of Law; James
Pope, Rutgers Law School--Newark; Cornelia Pillard,
Georgetown University Law Center; Theodore St. Antoine,
University of Michigan Law School; Paul Secunda, Marquette
University Law School; Lorraine Schmall, Northern Illinois
University Law School; Sidney Shapiro, Wake Forest University
Law School; Joseph Slater, University of Toledo College of
Law; Susan Stabile, St. Thomas University Law School;
Katherine V.W. Stone, UCLA Law School; Lea VanderVelde,
University of Iowa College of Law; Joan Vogel, Vermont Law
School; Marley Weiss, University of Maryland Law School;
Martha West, University of California, Davis--Law School;
Donna Young, Albany Law School; Noah Zatz, UCLA Law School.
Mr. HARKIN. As these records show, those who know Mr. Becker the best
all agree the President could not have made a better choice.
Unfortunately, Mr. Becker's nomination has been delayed for months on
end due to criticisms that are based on misinformation and misleading
descriptions of his views. Mr. Becker has gone to great lengths to
dispel those concerns and set the record straight. The first time his
nomination was considered by this committee last year, he answered 282
written questions from committee Republicans. He also said he would
meet with any Senator who expressed an interest to personally explain
his views. Only two asked to meet with him. This year, he testified
before the HELP Committee, as I mentioned earlier, and answered 158
additional questions. To put this in perspective, Justice Sotomayor,
seeking a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, only had 220
questions submitted to her.
While this exhaustive vetting process should have alleviated any
concerns about Mr. Becker's nomination, it appears there is still a lot
of misinformation going around, so I would like to take this
opportunity to set the record straight once and for all--not that I
think what I am about to say or the letters and things I will point to
will change any Republican minds. It seems as though their minds are
made up en bloc that they are going to oppose Mr. Becker, just as they
opposed Patricia Smith. But I think it is important for the general
public to get the facts and to understand what this is all about.
First and foremost, critics have suggested Mr. Becker would come to
the Board with an agenda and that he would try to implement the
Employee Free Choice Act by administrative fiat.
As you are all aware, I am a supporter of the Employee Free Choice
Act, as is President Obama. He campaigned on it. I hope to see it
passed by Congress. I look forward to the debate. I hope it is signed
into law by the President. But I have no illusions that those important
changes can somehow be accomplished administratively, and neither does
Craig Becker. He has clearly and consistently explained on numerous
occasions that all three major reforms in the Employee Free Choice
Act--the card check, binding arbitration for first contracts, and
increased penalties for violations of the law--cannot be accomplished
without a change in the statute. As we all know, statutes can only be
amended by those of us elected to Congress, not by appointees to the
NLRB. Mr. Becker was unequivocal in his responses on this point.
Let's take a look at what Mr. Becker says and not what others say
about him, not what others would like him to do. We heard a lot about
that on Patricia Smith a week ago, on what others said, but let's take
a look at what Mr. Becker has to say.
On the issue of card check, he states:
The reason the Employee Free Choice Act has been introduced
in Congress and the reason that question is before Congress
and not the Board is that the current Act clearly precludes
certification in the absence of a secret ballot election.
Section 9 of the Act, in two distinct ways, makes clear that
Congress has intended that a secret ballot election be
preconditioned for certification of the union.
So, again, what Mr. Becker has said is that the Board can't change
that.
On binding arbitration, he said:
The second section [of EFCA] establishes procedures for
mediation and, if necessary,
[[Page S524]]
binding arbitration in circumstances where a union or
employer engaged in bargaining for a first contract are
unable to reach agreement. Action by Congress would also be
required to implement these procedures.
So on the second part of the Employee Free Choice Act, Mr. Becker
says that only Congress can change it.
Finally, in discussing the new penalties about which I spoke a little
bit ago, Mr. Becker says:
The third and final section of EFCA would establish civil
penalties and a treble backpay remedy for certain unfair
labor practices. I do not believe the Board has authority to
award double or triple backpay as a remedy for a violation of
Section 8(a)(3) without congressional action nor do I believe
that section 10 currently vests in the Board the authority to
impose the penalties discussed above.
Well, I don't think he could have been any clearer in his views on
this issue.
Earlier, we had some discussion by the Senator from Georgia and also
my colleague from Wyoming about the National Mediation Board and how
two people got on the Mediation Board and immediately overturned 75
years of law.
What you never heard was that the National Mediation Board acted
within their rights. No one is saying they did something to violate a
law. They acted within the purview of the authority they have. That is
not the same case with the NLRB. They do not have this authority.
Second, I think it is important, since people listened to this about
the National Mediation Board, to clear up one thing. Here is what they
did. For 75 years they have said basically in these types of elections,
if someone doesn't vote it is considered a ``no'' vote. Imagine that.
If you don't vote it is a ``no'' vote. Now they say that you only have
to have 51 percent of those voting to have an affirmative vote. Who is
going to dispute that? That is what we do in bond elections in this
country, that is what we do in referendums, school board elections, and
even elections for the Senate.
Think about this. What if you said if you don't vote that is a ``no''
vote. Nowhere else in this country do we say that. If you don't vote,
it should not be counted yes and it should not be counted no. The
National Mediation Board simply applied the general rule of elections
we follow in this country.
Mr. Becker has also received criticism based on his academic
writings. Opponents of his nomination have suggested that he supports
radical changes in the law that would require workers to join unions
against their will, or take away the free speech rights of employers.
These wild assertions have no basis in reality, and Mr. Becker has gone
to great pains to rebut these mischaracterizations of his academic
views.
For example on the issue of mandatory unionism, Mr. Becker has
explained in response to a question from Senator Burr that: ``The Act
vests in employees the right to self-organization and to form, join, or
assist labor organizations and the right to refrain from doing any and
all of such activities with the limited exception provided in section
8(a)(3) as modified by section 14(b). If I am confirmed, I will
faithfully apply those provisions of the law.'' And again, in response
to a question from Senator Roberts, he stated without reservation that:
``I believe workers should have a choice of whether or not to join a
union.''
Similarly, in discussing allegations that he supports eliminating
employer free speech rights, Mr. Becker has responded: ``It's clear
that employers have a legitimate interest, and have a right which is
indisputable to express their views on the question of whether their
employees should unionize. So nothing in . . . my writing should be
construed to suggest that in any way I think that employers don't have
a right to clearly express their views on the question of
unionization.'' That was in response to a question by Senator Isakson.
I fail to see why these direct and unequivocal responses do not
alleviate my colleagues' concerns. I don't know what more his critics
are looking for.
Evidently they are more interested in looking at what other people
have to say about him than what Mr. Becker says himself.
Finally, some of my colleagues seem to have problems----
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we have several Senators who wish to
speak on the first vote that is coming up this afternoon, the Greenaway
nomination. Is the Senator going to give us any time? Because our time
is also being used by him right now. I was wondering if at some point
we might have time to speak on the Greenaway nomination.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, I thought we had 45 minutes on our
side for the nomination of Mr. Becker.
Mr. LEAHY. No.
Mr. HARKIN. I am using that time.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my understanding is that time was to be
used for both Becker and Greenaway. I was wondering, since Greenaway is
the first vote we are going to come to, whether we will have time on
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is incurred on both matters.
Mr. HARKIN. I believed, under the information that I had, 45 minutes
out of 90 minutes that was evenly split on Mr. Becker. I have been
waiting for a long time to speak on Mr. Becker. I see no reason why we
couldn't ask for consent to move the vote back a little bit if people
want to. I wouldn't object to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if the Senator would yield further, the
reason I was here is I was told the time, 45 minutes, was to be used
for both nominations. If the Senator from Iowa wishes to use all the
time for his nomination, I also point out that Judge Greenaway has been
waiting since last June for his vote. But certainly the Senator has the
floor. I understand he has the floor and I understand he can take all
the time and not leave any time to the other Senators who are supposed
to receive time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats retain 7 minutes 40 seconds in
debate.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I do not want to keep anyone from
speaking. I was under a misimpression. I did not know I did not have my
45 minutes. I apologize. This was not part of my information. I will
try to wrap up as rapidly as I can. But I think this is important.
Obviously, Mr. Greenaway seems to have a lot of support. There is no
contention about him but there certainly is about Mr. Becker and I want
to set the record straight about Mr. Becker.
My colleagues seem to have a problem with Mr. Becker simply because
he is a union lawyer and a darned good one. But that should not be a
cause for concern. Most labor lawyers devote their time either to labor
or representing management. Indeed, since the Board's inception, 23
management attorneys or consultants have served on the Board compared
to only 3 who came from a background of representing unions--23 to 3.
Now we have someone come from a background of representing unions and
now they do not want him on the Board.
Again, these people all came from different backgrounds. I am sure
Mr. Becker will approach this with an open mind and impartiality. No
one has suggested there is an ethical problem with Mr. Becker's
previous employment. He has clearly and unequivocally stated that he
will recuse himself from matters that may come before the Board
concerning his former employers, the Service Employees International
Union and the AFL-CIO, for a period of 2 years. He answered 440 written
questions. After months of delay, it is time to move on, not only
because Mr. Becker is so abundantly qualified but also because the NLRB
has important work to do. We owe it to hard-working Americans to act
quickly on these nominations. I hope all my colleagues will join me in
supporting Mr. Becker's nomination so we can complete this process and
let him start his important work.
I yield the floor.
I apologize to my good friend from Vermont but as he can tell, I
needed to get the record straight on Mr. Becker.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, no apology is necessary. The only reason
I raised that is because I heard what the order was earlier this
afternoon.
Today the Senate will finally consider the nomination of Judge Joseph
Greenaway to fill the vacancy created by Justice Alito on the U.S.
Court of
[[Page S525]]
Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Greenaway is an outstanding jurist
who has served for nearly 14 years on the Federal district court in New
Jersey. President Obama nominated him last June. That nomination was
reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee more than 4 months ago,
without a single dissenting vote. He should have been confirmed long
ago. I have been speaking about this nomination for some time to call
attention to the unexplained and unnecessary delay in its
consideration. The Senators from New Jersey have both come to the
Senate floor on repeated occasions calling for consideration. Judge
Greenaway will finally be confirmed today.
I continue to be deeply disappointed by the delays and obstruction
caused by Senate Republicans. Regrettably, Judge Greenaway's long-
stalled nomination is another example of these tactics. As I previously
explained in a statement on January 25, the Senate majority leader came
before the Senate on January 22 to highlight the delay in the
consideration of Judge Greenaway. Senate Republicans would not agree to
consider his nomination that week, or the next week, or the next. It
took the persistence of the majority leader and the vocal support of
the Senators from New Jersey, who spoke on January 25 and, again on
February 2, about the Republican stalling, to pry this nomination
loose. That is wrong. It should not take such effort to get Senate
Republicans to vote on a nomination, especially one that most, if not
all, of them are likely to support. We should be able in regular order
to consider noncontroversial nominations like that of Judge Greenaway
without months of delay.
Despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominees
to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush, last year's total
was the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in the first year of a
Presidency in more than 50 years--since 1953 when President Eisenhower
only made nine nominations all year, all of which were confirmed. The
number of confirmations was even below the 17 the Senate Republican
majority allowed to be confirmed in the 1996 session.
Last week, at the Democratic Policy Committee's issues retreat, I
asked President Obama if he will continue to work hard to send names to
the Senate as quickly as possible, and to commit to work with us, both
Republicans and Democrats, to get these nominees confirmed. So far
since taking office the President has reached across the aisle working
with Republicans and Democrats to identify well-qualified nominations.
Yet even these nominations are delayed or obstructed. The President
responded by stating:
Well, this is going to be a priority. Look, it is not just judges,
unfortunately, Pat, it is also all our Federal appointees. We have got
a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified;
nobody has a specific objection to them, but end up having a hold on
them because of some completely unrelated piece of business.
On the judges front, we had a judge for the--coming out of Indiana,
Judge Hamilton, who everybody said was outstanding--Evan Bayh,
Democrat; Dick Lugar, Republican; all recommended. How long did it take
us? Six months, 6, 7 months for somebody who was supported by the
Democratic and Republican senator from that State. And you can multiply
that across the board. So we have to start highlighting the fact that
this is not how we should be doing business.
I could not agree more with President Obama. This should not be the
way the Senate behave. Last week, the Senate had to vote to invoke
cloture and end the 15th filibuster of President Obama's nominations to
fill important posts in the executive branch and the judiciary. That
number does not include the many other nominees who have been prevented
up-or-down votes in the Senate by the silent filibuster of Republicans
refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial
nominees. Every single Republican Senator who voted last Monday voted
against cloture and to keep filibustering a well-qualified nominee.
Every single Republican voted to obstruct the Senate from doing the
business of the American people.
Unfortunately, we have seen the repeated abuse of filibusters, and
delay and obstruction have become the norm for Senate Republicans. We
have seen unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans on issue
after issue--over 100 filibusters last year alone, which has affected
70 percent of all Senate action. Instead of time agreements and the
will of the majority, the Senate is faced with a requirement to find 60
Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. Those who just
a short time ago said that a majority vote is all that should be needed
to confirm a nomination, and that filibusters of nominations are
unconstitutional, have reversed themselves and now employ any delaying
tactic they can.
The Republican practice of making supermajorities the new standard to
proceed to consider many noncontroversial and well-qualified
nominations for important posts in the executive branch, and to fill
vacancies on the Federal courts, is having a debilitating effect on our
government's ability to serve the American people. Hard-working
Americans who seek justice in our overburdened Federal courts are the
ones who will pay the price for Republicans' obstruction and delay.
They deserve better.
Even after years of Republican pocket filibusters that blocked more
than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees from even having a
hearing and led to skyrocketing judicial vacancies, Democrats did not
practice this kind of obstruction and delay in considering President
Bush's nominations. We worked hard to reverse the Republican
obstructionism. In the second half of 2001, the Democratic majority in
the Senate proceeded to confirm 28 judges.
By February 9, 2002, the comparable date in President Bush's first
term, the Senate had confirmed 32 circuit and district court
nominations. Judge Greenaway will be only the 15th Federal circuit or
district judge allowed to be confirmed. That is less than half of where
we were in 2002.
During just the second year of President Bush's first term, the
Democratic Senate majority confirmed 72 judicial nominations and helped
reduce the vacancies left by Republican obstructionism from over 110 to
59 by the end of 2002. Overall, in the 17 months that I chaired the
Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the
Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees.
We continued to be fair and worked to reduce vacancies even during
President Bush's last year in office. With Senate Democrats again in
the majority, we reduced judicial vacancies to as low as 34, even
though it was a Presidential election year. When President Bush left
office, we had reduced vacancies in 9 of the 13 Federal circuits.
As matters stand today, judicial vacancies have spiked again, as they
did due to Republican obstruction in the 1990s. These vacancies are
again being left unfilled. We started 2010 with the highest number of
vacancies on article III courts since 1994, when the vacancies created
by the last comprehensive judgeship bill were still being filled. While
it has been nearly 20 years since we enacted a Federal judgeship bill,
judicial vacancies are nearing record levels, with 102 current
vacancies and another 21 already announced. If we had proceeded on the
judgeship bill recommended by the Judicial Conference to address the
growing burden on our Federal judiciary, as we did in 1984 and 1990, in
order to provide the resources the courts need, current vacancies would
stand over 160 today and would be headed toward 180. That is the true
measure of how far behind we have fallen.
Republican Senators insisted on stalling confirmation of the
nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch, who was confirmed with more than 90
votes. They insisted on stalling the nomination of Judge Andre Davis,
who was confirmed with more than 70 votes. They unsuccessfully
filibustered the nomination of Judge David Hamilton last November,
having delayed its consideration for months. They stalled Judge Beverly
Martin's nomination for at least 2 months because they would not agree
to consider it before January 20. They have stalled for 3 additional
weeks on Judge Greenaway's nomination. We have wasted weeks and months
having to seek time agreements in order to consider nominations that
were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and who
[[Page S526]]
are then confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate once they are finally
allowed to be considered.
Judge Greenaway's nomination is yet another example. He is a good
judge who had years of experience as a Federal prosecutor. He received
the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association's
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Senator Sessions praised
him at his confirmation hearing. He should have been confirmed last
year, and he would have but for Republican objection.
I, again, urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy and
allow prompt consideration of the other judicial nominees awaiting
Senate consideration: Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia, nominated to
the Fourth Circuit; Judge Jane Stranch of Tennessee, nominated to the
Sixth Circuit; Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania, nominated to the
Third Circuit; Judge Denny Chin of New York, nominated to the Second
Circuit; Judge William Conley, nominated to the Western District of
Wisconsin; Justice Rogeriee Thompson of Rhode Island, nominated to the
First Circuit; Judge James Wynn of North Carolina, nominated to the
Fourth Circuit; Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina, nominated to the
Fourth Circuit; Judge Edward Chen, nominated to the Northern District
of California; and Justice Louis Butler, nominated to the Western
District of Wisconsin.
I commend the Senators from New Jersey for their hard work that has
proven effective in connection with the nomination of Judge Greenaway
and I congratulate Judge Greenaway and his family.
I note the distinguished senior Senator from New Jersey and Senator
Menendez from New Jersey wish to speak.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I regret that the time has been
shrunken as it has.
I want an opportunity to register my full support to confirm an
exceptionally well-qualified district jurist--Judge Joseph Greenaway--
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
For more than 13 years, Judge Greenaway has served on U.S. District
Court in Newark, NJ.
On the entrance to that courthouse there is an inscription that
reads:
The true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of
justice.
I take pride in authorship of that quote because I firmly believe it
reflects the values on which our Nation was founded--values that must
endure throughout our government and legal system.
While serving as a district judge in that building, Judge Greenaway
has demonstrated his unyielding commitment to those values--the same
values that will make him a success on the Third Circuit court of
appeals.
There can be no question that Judge Greenaway is eminently qualified
for this position.
Let's take a look at his credentials.
From humble beginnings, Judge Joseph Greenaway became a graduate of
Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Assistant U.S. Attorney for
New Jersey, Chief of the Narcotics Division, U.S. District Court Judge
for New Jersey, was confirmed by the Senate in 1996, presided over more
than 4,000 cases, was rated unanimously well-qualified by the ABA and
his nomination to the Third Circuit passed unanimously by Senate
Judiciary Committee.
On top of his outstanding experience and intellect, there has never
been a question about Judge Greenaway's ability, character, or
commitment to the community. We are so fortunate that we have this
outstanding individual.
Throughout his career, despite his critical bench responsibilities,
Judge Greenaway has always found time to help others aspiring to
preserve our just society's obligations--by teaching criminal trial
practice classes at Cardozo Law School and courses about the Supreme
Court there and at Columbia University.
And he has received numerous honors and awards recognizing his work.
Among them: Thurgood Marshall College Fund Award of Excellence; Garden
State Bar Association Distinguished Jurist Award; Chair Emeritus of the
Columbia College Black Alumni Council.
In fact, the only question surrounding Judge Greenaway's confirmation
is this: What took so long to move him along to this very busy appeals
court?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The time of the majority has
expired.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Senator
Menendez to be able to have 3 minutes also. I ask for an additional 6
minutes for the Senators from New Jersey, which is considerably more
than I had.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will just take a couple of more minutes.
While I welcome a vote that will establish confidence in Judge
Greenaway's ability to serve our country, today's vote comes 4 months
after his nomination came to the floor of the U.S. Senate because of
unnecessary and unreasonable delays.
Not one of my Republican colleagues has voiced a single objection to
Judge Greenaway along the way or a single reason for this delay.
Judge Greenaway and the people of New Jersey are not alone in falling
victim to this obstruction.
Republican obstructionism last year led to the lowest number of
judicial confirmations in more than 50 years.
Justice has been delayed while those who refused to let this vote
take place had another agenda--purely to score political points. It is
shameful and the American people show discouragement.
I hope today's vote signals a break in the profuse presence of
obstructionism and will permit us to do our work for the American
people in a more timely fashion.
If they have objections based on character or ability, tell the
American people that. Don't hide behind a cloak of procedure.
The ABA found Judge Greenaway unanimously well-qualified and the
Senate Judiciary Committee was unanimous in supporting this nomination.
Today, I urge all my colleagues to once again unanimously support the
confirmation of this brilliant legal scholar, Judge Joseph Greenaway,
to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I first spoke in favor of the nomination
of Judge Joseph A. Greenaway for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit when I introduced him to the Judiciary Committee on
September 10. This has been a long 5-month process, unnecessarily long
for a good man and a noncontroversial nominee who was once unanimously
approved by this Chamber under Republican leadership, and I might add
received the full support, the unanimous support of the Judiciary
Committee. Yet the minority has continued to delay his confirmation
along with many others.
If confirmed, he would be only the 15th of President Obama's circuit
or district court nominees to be confirmed despite more than 100
vacancies on the Federal bench.
Having said that, today we are finally here to vote on the nomination
of a man who fully embodies respect for justice and the rule of law
that should have made this a simple, clear, easy choice.
Let me briefly repeat his impeccable qualifications. At the age of
38, Justice Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., was appointed by President
Clinton to the Federal bench and has served for over a dozen years with
distinction. He earned a bachelor of arts from Columbia University
where he was honored, in 1997, with the Columbia University Medal of
Excellence and with the John Jay Award in 2003.
He earned his J.D. from Harvard Law where he was a member of the
Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, and an Earl Warren
Legal Scholar.
He later clerked for the late Honorable Vincent L. Broderick, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, became an
Assistant U.S. Attorney in Newark and later became chief of the
narcotics bureau.
In the private sector, he was an associate with the firm of Kramer,
Levin, Nessen, Kamin, and Frankel--and served at Johnson and Johnson as
in-house counsel.
He is chair emeritus of the Columbia College Black Alumni Council and
has been an adjunct professor at Rutgers Law School.
[[Page S527]]
Currently, he is an adjunct professor at both the Cardozo School of
Law and Columbia College where he teaches a seminar on the Supreme
Court. But however impressive his experience and qualifications, they
do not do justice to the man.
He grew up in Harlem and the northeast Bronx not far from where
Justice Sotomayor grew up, just across the river from Union City, NJ,
where I grew up. He has a deep respect for the rule of law and a
fundamental belief in fairness and the age-old notion of equal justice
under law.
He is accomplished and successful in his life and career, and proud
of the justice system to which he has devoted his career. But he has
also given much back to the community, something for which we in New
Jersey will remain forever grateful.
In 2006, before Judge Greenaway took the podium at the Benjamin
Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva, Dean David Rudenstein introduced him
as a man who touched many of his students' lives in meaningful ways.
Those students, he said, had the privilege of witnessing his humanness
and had been inspired by his example.
That observation came as a surprise to no one who knows Judge
Greenaway. He has always been an inspiration to students and graduates
alike, taking many of them under his wing as law clerks or fellows.
Mediocrity has never been Joe Greenaway's norm. He has always strived
for excellence, and taught young lawyers to do the same.
In conclusion, the confirmation of Judge Greenaway should have been
an easy choice, but when all is said and done, when we put aside our
political biases and look for those with the illusive qualities we like
to call judicial temperament, those who best represent the fundamental
concepts of justice and community, for as Edmund Burke once said:
``Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society . .
.''
Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. stands out. I am pleased that his
nomination has finally come to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to
vote for this eminently qualified, capable, nominee.
I know I join with all of my colleagues and with the people of New
Jersey in wishing Judge Greenaway good luck and Godspeed on this next
journey in life.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., of New Jersey,
to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit?
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from
Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison),
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Dakota
(Mr. Thune), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch)
would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 21 Ex.]
YEAS--84
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--16
Brownback
Byrd
Casey
DeMint
Ensign
Graham
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Landrieu
Pryor
Roberts
Sanders
Thune
Vitter
The nomination was confirmed.
cloture motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of
Craig Becker, of Illinois, to be a member of the National
Labor Relations Board.
Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Benjamin L. Cardin, Debbie
Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, Amy
Klobuchar, Mark Begich, Byron L. Dorgan, Dianne
Feinstein, John D. Rockefeller IV, Edward E. Kaufman,
Roland W. Burris, Daniel K. Akaka, Sheldon Whitehouse,
Sherrod Brown.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of Craig Becker, of Illinois, to be a member of the National
Labor Relations Board, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), and the Senator
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison),
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Dakota
(Mr. Thune), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) would have voted ``nay,'' the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch)
would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 33, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 22 Ex.]
YEAS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--33
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Grassley
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
[[Page S528]]
Risch
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--15
Brownback
Byrd
DeMint
Ensign
Graham
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Landrieu
Pryor
Roberts
Sanders
Thune
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are
33. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made
and laid upon the table, and the President will be notified of the
Senate's action.
____________________